G.R. No. 188464 , July 29, 2015
ALBERTO J. RAZA, Petitioner, vs. DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS., INC. and MAMORU ONO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alberto J. Raza was hired as a driver by respondent Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. on January 11, 1999, and was eventually assigned to drive for the company president, respondent Mamoru Ono. On the evening of July 21, 2003, after dropping Ono off at his residence, Raza drove the company vehicle to his home and parked it there overnight without permission. The next morning, when Ono confronted him, Raza lied, stating he had parked the car in the wrong slot at the condominium. On July 24, 2003, Raza was served a Notice of Violation for Dishonesty. In his written explanation and during a company hearing, Raza admitted to taking the car home and lying about it but claimed Ono had previously authorized him to use the car if needed. The company’s Investigation Committee recommended a 12-day suspension. However, the company’s General Affairs Manager, disregarding the recommendation, terminated Raza’s services for dishonesty on August 7, 2003, after Ono denied giving permission and presented a security report indicating Raza had taken the car without authority on 31 prior instances from May 1 to July 20, 2003. Raza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Raza, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC, upon respondents’ appeal (initially dismissed but later reinstated), reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding the dismissal valid but ordering payment of wages for the period of reinstatement pendency. The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration dated October 21, 2005, was filed on time with the NLRC.
2. Whether petitioner Alberto J. Raza committed infractions meriting the penalty of dismissal from employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
1. On the procedural issue: The Court found Raza’s contention regarding the late filing of the motion for reconsideration untenable. The issue is factual and not reviewable under a Rule 45 petition. The findings of the NLRC and CA on this matter are final. The envelopes and registry receipts indicated the motion was mailed on October 21, 2005, the deadline, and there is a presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Raza failed to rebut this presumption.
2. On the substantive issue: The Court held that Raza’s dismissal was valid. The twin acts of taking the company vehicle without permission and lying to his superior about it constitute dishonesty, a serious breach of trust that justifies dismissal. As a driver, Raza held a position of trust, and his dishonesty eroded the confidence essential to the employment relationship. The Court found the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the offense, considering the willful and deliberate nature of the falsehood and the prior unauthorized use of the vehicle as indicated by the security report, which Raza failed to convincingly refute. The employer’s prerogative to impose disciplinary measures was exercised justly, with due process observed, as Raza was given notice, opportunity to explain, and a hearing.