G.R. No. 76818 -19 July 3, 1992
CDCP TOLLWAYS OPERATION EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION IN BEHALF OF REYNALDO MIRANDA and GUILLERMO CARIÑO, JR., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (NOW PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION) FLORANTE DE GUZMAN, JOSE S. SANQUI and PABLO DIZON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Reynaldo Miranda and Guillermo Cariño, Jr. were toll tellers at the Balintawak Toll Gate of the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (now Philippine National Construction Corporation). On July 7, 1983, field auditor Victoria Robles saw reliever Rosario Sanchez exit Booth No. 5 (manned by Miranda) and enter Booth No. 3 (manned by Cariño), where she was seen folding a paper into her pocket. Suspecting it was a cash count sheet, Robles sought permission for a body search. As Sanchez was being taken to the sub-office, she threw a folded cash count sheet inside the powerhouse. Technician Danilo Estanislao grabbed it and put it in his pocket. After refusing to hand it over, Estanislao threw the paper toward a security guard’s drawer. When the drawer was opened, Cariño grabbed the cash count sheet from Robles, crumpled it, and put it in his pocket. Upon retrieval, it contained P590.00. A carton box found in the same drawer, which Estanislao claimed was trash, contained 47 unvalidated patron tickets worth P646.00. Estanislao and Cariño were dismissed in August 1983, and Lily Maglunog and Miranda were dismissed in October 1983 for loss of trust and confidence. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter sustained the dismissal but awarded separation pay. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal but modified the award, granting Maglunog and Miranda only one-half month’s pay per year of service and denying any separation pay to Estanislao and Cariño.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissals of the petitioners were legal and whether they were entitled to separation pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision, dismissing the petition for certiorari. The dismissals were legal based on loss of trust and confidence. For loss of confidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; it is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss of trust or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe the employee is responsible for misconduct. The investigation report, although not based on the investigator’s direct observation, was based on witness testimonies and constituted substantial evidence, which is sufficient in administrative proceedings. The Court found that Cariño’s and Estanislao’s complicity in attempting to cover up the pilferage was established. For Miranda, while the evidence was weaker, there was sufficient basis for the company to lose confidence in him. The petitioners were not deprived of due process as they were notified of the specific charges, given notices of suspension and dismissal stating the cause, and instructed to appear before an investigation panel to present evidence. The award of separation pay by the NLRC was upheld: Maglunog and Miranda were entitled to one-half month’s pay per year of service, while Estanislao and Cariño were not entitled to any separation pay.