GR 126805; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126805; March 16, 2000
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (3rd Division) and MARCELITO PESCANTE, respondents.
FACTS
Marcelito Pescante, a load controller for Philippine Airlines (PAL), was assigned to Flight PR 841 on January 19, 1993. His duty was to determine the aircraft’s load balance using baggage weight data from check-in clerks. A passenger, Myla Cominero, checked in with seven pieces of baggage. Check-in clerk Edgar Vicente took over her processing, and after a conversation about over P1,000 in excess baggage charges, Cominero handed money to a police officer, who later gave it to Vicente. Vicente then manipulated the records by pooling Cominero’s excess baggage weight with other passengers’ tickets to make it appear within allowable limits. Cominero later arrived at boarding, insisting she had paid, but no receipt was issued. An investigation ensued.
PAL charged Pescante and Vicente with fraud. Vicente, in his statement, implicated Pescante in the scheme. PAL dismissed Pescante for violating company rules against fraud. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal. However, the NLRC reversed, ordering Pescante’s reinstatement with backwages, finding insufficient evidence of his direct participation and noting PAL suffered no actual loss since the excess baggage fee was eventually paid.
ISSUE
Was Pescante’s dismissal for just cause?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling Pescante’s dismissal was valid. The Court emphasized that in dismissal cases, substantial evidence suffices. The evidence, including Vicente’s statement and the investigative reports, established Pescante’s participation in the fraudulent scheme to underreport baggage weight to deprive PAL of lawful revenue. His role as load controller was crucial, as he prepared the manifest reflecting the falsified pooled weights. Fraud under PAL’s Code of Discipline does not require actual financial loss to the company; the attempt to defraud is sufficient. The act constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal. Consequently, the NLRC’s order for reinstatement and backwages had no basis. The award of financial assistance was also correctly deleted, as such equitable relief is not warranted in cases involving fraud or acts affecting moral character.