G.R. No. 113774 April 15, 1998
CARLITO GARCIA, EDUARDO ROAN, ALBERTO REYES, and ABEL GONZALES, petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and COCA COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. (CCBPI), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Carlito Garcia, Eduardo Roan, Alberto Reyes, and Abel Gonzalez were sales employees at the Bagumbayan Sales Office of private respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (CCBPI). On November 11, 1991, their Regional Sales Manager, Jess M. Bangsil, was informed they had locked themselves in a comfort room. Upon investigation, Bangsil and a security guard found a thick cloud of smoke inside and observed petitioners acting strangely. Found near the awning window were a cigarette lighter, cotton string, a ballpen tip, and cigarette aluminum foil containing a whitish substance. Petitioners were instructed to undergo a medical examination. The company doctor did not proceed with the urine test after the nurse reported the submitted samples were adulterated with water or were not petitioners’ urine. A janitor executed an affidavit stating petitioner Garcia coerced him to provide a urine sample. The next day, petitioners allegedly refused to submit new urine samples. The whitish substance was sent to the NBI, which certified it did not contain Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). After an investigation, CCBPI found petitioners guilty of violating company rules on working under the influence/possession of prohibited drugs and terminated them on January 6, 1992. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC upheld the dismissal. Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were illegally dismissed. The evidence was insufficient to establish they violated company rules on drug use or possession. The drug paraphernalia were not found in petitioners’ possession but in a public comfort room. The NBI certification confirmed the substance was not shabu, rebutting CCBPI’s claim it had degraded. The allegations of urine sample adulteration and refusal to submit new samples were not substantiated by evidence. The Court found no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of serious misconduct. Termination, as the ultimate penalty, requires clear, valid, and equitable grounds, which were absent. The constitutional mandate for security of tenure and the policy against forfeiture of a worker’s means of livelihood guided the decision. The NLRC’s decision was reversed and set aside. CCBPI was ordered to reinstate petitioners with full backwages, inclusive of allowances and benefits, without loss of seniority rights.