G.R. No. 215314 . March 14, 2018.
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS AND ANTONIO STEVEN L. CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF ZUELO APOSTOL, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondent Zuelo Apostol was a Motor Pool Over-All Repairs Supervisor for petitioner Central Azucarera de Bais (CAB) for 20 years. On February 2, 2002, a security guard inspection discovered Apostol using his assigned company house and what were presumed to be company equipment (including an oxygen-acetylene outfit and steel plates) to repair privately owned vehicles. CAB management issued a memorandum placing Apostol on preventive suspension and directing him to explain why he should not be disciplined for violating company Rule 9, which prohibits using company materials or equipment for private work without permission.
In his handwritten explanation, Apostol admitted to repairing his personal vehicle without permission and apologized, but claimed he used only a trouble light and his personal acetylene and oxygen. Disregarding this explanation, CAB terminated his employment on February 8, 2002. Apostol filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal valid. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, ruling the dismissal illegal due to insufficient evidence that the equipment used was company property and finding the penalty too harsh.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Zuelo Apostol was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared the dismissal valid. The Court emphasized the employer’s management prerogative to dismiss employees for just cause, provided it is exercised in good faith. For dismissal based on violation of company rules, two requisites must concur: (1) the employee must have been afforded due process, and (2) the violation must be proven by substantial evidence.
The Court found both requisites satisfied. Procedurally, Apostol was given notice of the charge, a reasonable opportunity to explain (which he did via his handwritten letter), and notice of termination. Substantively, the evidence was sufficient. As supervisor, Apostol was entrusted with custody of company equipment. The security guard’s report detailed the use of repair equipment at the company house. Apostol’s own explanation admitted to the core violation—conducting private repair work using the company premises without permission—which inherently involved the use of company resources like electricity. His bare denial regarding the ownership of specific tools, offered only after his termination complaint was filed, was a mere afterthought insufficient to overturn the factual findings. Given his supervisory role and the breach of trust, the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the offense.