G.R. No. 105775 February 8, 1993
BENITO D. CHUA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER BIENVENIDO V. HERMOGENES and NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

On September 10, 1987, the Union of Filipro Employees, to which petitioner Benito D. Chua belonged, declared a strike against Nestle Philippines, Inc. During the strike, striking employees threw stones at company trucks. One incident resulted in a truck driver being rendered unconscious, leading to a crash that killed three persons and caused extensive property damage. A criminal complaint for multiple murder and frustrated murder was filed against petitioner and others but was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The strike was declared illegal by the NLRC, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. On December 17, 1987, the union offered to return to work. The company readmitted the strikers except for 69 union officers and 33 members, including petitioner. A request for his reinstatement was denied, and on February 5, 1988, he received a notice of dismissal for participating in the illegal strike. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. On September 22, 1989, the Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal was valid, finding based on the testimony of Mr. Maniego, the company’s Personnel Supervisor, that petitioner actively participated in manning the barricades that obstructed free ingress to and egress from the employer’s premises. However, the Labor Arbiter awarded petitioner financial assistance in the form of backwages and separation pay. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, seeking reinstatement. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision that the dismissal of petitioner was valid, and (2) affirming the award of financial assistance to petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit but modified the NLRC’s decision by deleting the award of financial assistance.
1. On the validity of dismissal: The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s participation in the illegal strike and his commission of illegal acts (manning barricades that obstructed free ingress/egress) were sufficiently established by substantial evidence, primarily the testimony of Mr. Maniego. The dismissal of the related criminal complaint did not preclude a finding by administrative authorities that petitioner committed acts inimical to his employer’s interests, as the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases differs from that in labor cases.
2. On the award of financial assistance: The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming this award. The Court ruled that financial assistance is not permissible when an employee is validly dismissed for serious misconduct or causes reflecting adversely on moral character. Petitioner’s participation in an unlawful and violent strike resulting in deaths and property damage constituted serious misconduct. Therefore, the award had no legal basis. The Court modified the NLRC decision by deleting the award, without prejudice to any voluntary, ex gratia grant by the private respondent.