G.R. No. 119912 March 19, 1998
Felixberto Biantan, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division, Cebu City) and Victorias Milling Co., Inc., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felixberto Biantan was hired by respondent Victorias Milling Co., Inc. (VICTORIAS) in June 1957 and, after thirty years, rose to the position of Head of its Salvage and Disposal Section. On March 15, 1989, the company’s internal audit aborted an anomalous sale of four brand new Exide batteries, falsely classified as “discarded,” to a buyer named Victor Go. Further investigation revealed a prior similar transaction on January 18, 1989, involving four other brand new Exide batteries classified as “deteriorated.” Notices to explain were sent to petitioner and others on April 7, 1989. Petitioner submitted a written explanation denying involvement on April 10, 1989, and an in-plant investigation was conducted on April 12, 1989. He was placed under preventive suspension on April 24, 1989, and his request for a formal investigation to confront witnesses was denied on May 22, 1989. Based on witness statements, company records, and petitioner’s explanation, he was found principally involved in falsely identifying and selling brand-new batteries as deteriorated or discarded. His services were terminated on May 31, 1989. Petitioner contested his dismissal as illegal, seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint on May 29, 1992, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on February 28, 1995.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner from his employment was legal or illegal.

RULING

The dismissal was legal. The Supreme Court found that the evidence, including the testimonies of company storekeeper Jaime Beboso and Warehousing Section Chief Sta. Ana, adequately delineated petitioner’s direct participation in the fraudulent transactions. Petitioner, despite knowing the batteries were brand new, classified them as deteriorated or discarded and facilitated their sale. Given his position of trust and the nature of his work involving planning, directing, and controlling the Salvage and Disposal Section, the company had sufficient grounds to lose confidence in him. The findings of fact by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, supported by substantial evidence, are binding. However, the Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General that petitioner was not accorded due process, specifically the opportunity to confront witnesses against him in a formal investigation. Consequently, while the dismissal was upheld as for a just cause, respondent company was ordered to pay petitioner indemnity in the amount of P1,000.00 for non-observance of due process. The petition was dismissed, and the NLRC decision was affirmed with this modification.