G.R. No. 120474 ; August 12, 2003
ANICETO W. NAGUIT, JR., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aniceto W. Naguit, Jr., a 32-year employee and Administrative Officer of MERALCO’s Sta. Cruz, Laguna Branch, was dismissed on June 13, 1991. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 6, 1987. Naguit informed his supervisor he would render overtime work that Saturday and, after field assignments, proceed to Pagbilao, Quezon for a family wedding. He completed his supervisory field work in the morning and, with co-employee Fidel Cabuhat driving Naguit’s jeep, proceeded to Pagbilao. An Overtime Notice and Timesheet were prepared indicating Naguit worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 6 and 7, 1987. Naguit corrected it by erasing the June 7 entry, and the document was approved, leading to his overtime pay. A petty cash voucher for Cabuhat’s alleged overtime and jeep rental was also prepared, from which Naguit, as custodian, released ₱192.00 to Cabuhat.
MERALCO later charged Naguit with falsifying his time card for June 6, 1987, and inducing Cabuhat to falsify a voucher for unrendered work. After administrative hearings where Naguit waived counsel, MERALCO found him guilty of dishonesty and dismissed him. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The NLRC reversed, upholding the dismissal. Naguit elevated the case via certiorari, arguing the NLRC gravely abused its discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding petitioner’s dismissal for dishonesty.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court found that while Naguit committed dishonesty, the penalty of dismissal was too severe. The Court agreed with MERALCO’s finding that Naguit falsified his time card by claiming overtime pay for June 6, 1987, when he left his assignment for a personal trip to Pagbilao. His act of releasing petty cash to Cabuhat based on a voucher for work not performed further constituted a breach of trust as fund custodian. Dishonesty is a valid ground for dismissal under company rules and jurisprudence.
However, the Court emphasized that the penalty must be commensurate to the offense. Considering Naguit’s 32 years of unblemished service, dismissal was unduly harsh. The appropriate penalty would have been something less severe. At the time of the decision, Naguit was already about 65 years old, past MERALCO’s retirement age of 60, making reinstatement impossible. Therefore, the Court imposed the denial of backwages from his dismissal until retirement age as sufficient punishment. It set aside the NLRC decision and ordered MERALCO to pay Naguit his full retirement benefits computed from the start of his service until age 60, in accordance with the company plan.