G.R. No. 130425. September 30, 1999.
ANTONIO C. CAÑETE JR., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION, CAPT. RICARDO D. DICON and PATERNO M. ABELLERA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio C. Cañete Jr. was hired in May 1993 by private respondent Robinsons Land Corporation (RLC) as a Security Officer assigned at the Robinsons Galleria Shopping Mall. On November 1, 1995, an RLC Shift Security Supervisor apprehended a vendor, Ben C. Maniago, for selling food inside the mall in violation of company rules. During interrogation, Maniago claimed he had the permission of Cañete Jr. and a security guard, Mauro A. Montefalco, to sell food, in exchange for giving them free daily meals. Maniago later modified his statement, saying they paid him during payday. RLC required Cañete Jr. to explain. In his written statement, Cañete Jr. admitted ordering food from Maniago but denied receiving it for free, claiming he paid during payday. He also pointed out that vending was prevalent in other areas of RLC, leading him to believe it was allowed. On December 6, 1995, RLC terminated Cañete Jr.’s services on the ground of loss of confidence, citing that security is a position of trust and his actions were against company norms. Cañete Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with back wages and 13th month pay. The NLRC reversed this decision, holding the dismissal valid. Cañete Jr.’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s ruling that the dismissal was valid, with modification regarding the 13th month pay. The Court held that: (1) The documents and affidavits submitted by private respondents before the Labor Arbiter were admissible and had probative value, as technical rules of evidence are not controlling in labor cases, and petitioner’s failure to object constituted a waiver; (2) The NLRC correctly interpreted company rules, specifically Section 2.04 prohibiting employees from obtaining “anything of value” by entering into arrangements with outsiders. The extension of credit to petitioner by the vendor in exchange for allowing vending inside the mall constituted “anything of value”; (3) Petitioner’s violation of clear company policy, regardless of his claim of good faith or concern for low-wage employees, constituted a breach of trust justifying dismissal, and he was accorded due process; (4) However, petitioner is entitled to his full 13th month pay for 1995, as private respondents did not question the Labor Arbiter’s award thereof. The NLRC resolutions were affirmed with the modification that private respondents pay petitioner his full 13th month pay for 1995.