GR 181974; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181974 ; February 1, 2012
LYNVIL FISHING ENTERPRISES, INC. and/or ROSENDO S. DE BORJA, Petitioners, vs. ANDRES G. ARIOLA, JESSIE D. ALCOVENDAS, JIMMY B. CALINAO AND LEOPOLDO G. SEBULLEN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. terminated the employment of respondents, who were crew members of its fishing vessel Analyn VIII, on grounds of theft. Lynvil alleged that on July 31, 1998, the respondents conspired to steal eight tubs of fish. Based on a report from another employee, Lynvil’s General Manager issued a memorandum requiring the respondents to explain the incident. Except for two, the respondents allegedly refused to sign the receipt of the notice. Failing to submit an explanation, their employment was terminated. Lynvil subsequently filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft, wherein the City Prosecutor found probable cause.
The respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. They denied the theft, claiming they dutifully delivered the vessel’s catch to the consignee. They asserted that the accusation was fabricated in retaliation for their prior oral demand for a salary increase and their refusal to sign blank payrolls. They contended they were simply told to wait for a new assignment and were later informed of their termination without a proper investigation or hearing.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents were illegally dismissed.
RULING
Yes, the respondents were illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. For a dismissal based on a just cause, such as loss of trust and confidence for alleged theft, the employer must prove by substantial evidence both the factual basis for the charge and the observance of procedural due process. Here, Lynvil failed on both counts.
On the substantive aspect, Lynvil relied solely on the sworn statement of a single co-employee, Romanito Clarido. This lone allegation, uncorroborated by any other evidence, did not constitute the substantial evidence required in labor cases. The Court emphasized that the finding of probable cause by the prosecutor in the criminal case is not conclusive in the labor proceeding, which applies a different standard of proof. The employer did not present any other witness, documentary evidence, or inventory report to substantiate the claim that fish was actually missing. Thus, the charge of theft was not proven.
On the procedural aspect, the Court found that Lynvil did not comply with the twin-notice rule. While a memorandum was issued, the respondents disputed having received it, except for two individuals. More critically, there was no showing that a genuine hearing or conference was conducted where the respondents could confront their accuser, present evidence, and defend themselves. The termination was effectuated based on a one-sided investigation. Consequently, the dismissal was declared illegal for lack of both just cause and proper procedure. The awards for backwages and separation pay were upheld.