G.R. No. 120507 September 26, 1997
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION), AND VICENTE O. SATOR, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Vicente O. Sator, Jr., a Ramp Equipment Operator for Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), was accused of pilferage on November 15, 1993. Security Guard Rogelio Dasoc alleged he saw Sator take something from a baggage, wrap it in his shirt, and, when pursued, throw an item into a canal, which was later retrieved and identified as a lady’s wallet. PAL placed Sator under preventive suspension and sent him a Notice of Administrative Charge dated November 17, 1993, accusing him of serious misconduct for allegedly filching a “billfold” from a passenger’s baggage, violating the company’s Code of Discipline. After Sator filed his answer and a clarificatory hearing was conducted where he was represented by union counsel, PAL dismissed him for cause based on its finding that he was guilty of pilfering a “lady’s purse” or wallet. Sator contested his dismissal, denying the pilferage and claiming the security guards attempted to plant evidence. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal, giving more weight to the positive testimonies of PAL’s witnesses. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, declaring the dismissal illegal. The NLRC ruled that Sator was charged with stealing a “billfold” but was dismissed for stealing a “lady’s purse,” and since the alleged stolen item was never presented as evidence, the offense charged was not proven, violating his right to be informed of the charges and rendering the dismissal without just cause and due process.

ISSUE

Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the dismissal of Vicente O. Sator, Jr. illegal on the ground that the cause for his dismissal (pilferage of a lady’s purse) was not the exact offense charged in the notice (pilferage of a billfold).

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision and resolution of the NLRC, and REINSTATED the decision of the Labor Arbiter upholding the validity of the dismissal. The Court held that the variance between the terms “billfold” and “lady’s purse” in the notice of charge and the dismissal letter was a mere difference in nomenclature that did not alter the substance of the accusation, which was the act of pilferage itself. The Court found that Sator was fully aware of the charge against him, as evidenced by his affidavit and participation in the investigation aimed at negating the act of pilferage. The evidence presented by PAL consistently pertained to the same incident of theft, and there was no undue surprise or shift in the factual basis for the charge. The Court ruled that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause (serious misconduct/ pilferage) and that procedural due process was observed, as Sator was given notice, opportunity to answer, and a hearing with representation. The NLRC’s distinction was deemed a misapprehension that overlooked the essence of the charge.