G.R. Nos. 71632-33 March 9, 1989
METRO PORT SERVICE, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; HON. LABOR ARBITER PELAGIO A. CARPIO, MANUEL B. ARBO, ESTANISLAO M. INFANTE, JOSELITO B. JIMENO, ELEUTERIO A. CALLENGA AND SANTIAGO L. FONTANILLA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Metro Port Service, Inc. dismissed private respondents Manuel B. Arbo, Estanislao M. Infante, Joselito B. Jimeno, Eleuterio A. Callenga, and Santiago L. Fontanilla from their employment on July 20, 1983. The employees held various positions such as delivery cabo, delivery man, forklift operator, shed supervisor, and locator. The company asserted that their dismissal was justified, alleging that after a formal investigation, the respondents were found to have conspired in an abortive pilferage. The specific charge was that they attempted to smuggle out three spare Dunlop tires by making it appear these tires were part of the spares for two Isuzu dump trucks, which actually had Bridgestone tires welded to them.
The dismissed employees filed consolidated complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision on appeal. The petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, contending that the dismissal was legal and that the NLRC erred in its affirmation.

ISSUE

The sole issue for resolution is whether or not the private respondents were illegally dismissed from their employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal, thereby dismissing the petition. The legal logic rests on two fundamental grounds: the violation of procedural due process and the lack of substantive proof for the alleged offense. Procedurally, Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 and the implementing rules mandate that termination for a just cause must be preceded by both notice and a formal investigation where the employee is given ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself. The Court found that the so-called “interrogation” conducted by the company’s security personnel did not satisfy this requirement, as the employees were not allowed to explain their side. This arbitrary exercise of the right to dismiss rendered the termination illegal.
Substantively, the Court found the charge of conspiracy to commit pilferage unsubstantiated. The petitioner failed to prove that the three Dunlop spare tires were not legitimate parts of the shipment. On the contrary, the private respondents successfully presented the Packing List from Casco Trading Company, which indicated that the two Isuzu dump trucks in question were shipped with five pieces of spare tires. This documentary evidence directly contradicted the employer’s allegation and established that there was no factual basis for the accusation of theft. Consequently, the dismissal lacked both procedural regularity and just cause. The Court affirmed the reinstatement order but modified the backwages award, limiting it to three years.