G.R. Nos. 79718-22 April 12, 1989
QUEZON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MAYNARDO TAÑADA, RENATO BACUBE, FLAVIANO O. AGUBANG, PETRONIO R. POBEDA, and RAMON A. PAREJA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Quezon Electric Cooperative investigated electricity pilferage among its employees in 1984. Fourteen employees were implicated. Nine agreed to resign and claimed benefits, but the five private respondents—holding positions such as Disconnecting Officer, Lineman, Groundman, Housewiring Estimator/Inspector, and Bill Collector—did not resign and were subsequently dismissed. The cooperative presented specific evidence for each respondent, including findings of suspected illegal tapping, meter tampering, jumpered connections, and significant disparities between estimated and actual electricity consumption, indicating pilferage.
Private respondents filed separate illegal dismissal cases. The Labor Arbiter found a basis to suspect pilferage but ruled the evidence insufficient to justify dismissal, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC affirmed this decision. Petitioner filed the instant petition, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. Notably, the Solicitor General, representing the public respondent NLRC, sided with the petitioner, recommending reversal and upholding the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the evidence against the private respondents was insufficient to warrant their dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC’s resolution but modifying the award. The Court held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal doctrine of dismissal due to loss of confidence requires that the employee holds a position of trust and confidence. The breach of this trust provides the basis for dismissal. In cited precedents like Galsim v. PNB and Reyes v. Zamora, the dismissed employees held positions such as paying teller or credit manager, where they had custody or control over money or merchandise, directly implicating a fiduciary duty.
The Court found this premise absent for most private respondents. Their roles—Disconnecting Officer, Lineman, Groundman, and Housewiring Estimator/Inspector—were primarily technical or manual, not inherently positions of trust justifying dismissal on that specific ground. While the Bill Collector position could involve trust, the evidence for that specific respondent was still deemed insufficient. The findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. However, considering the circumstances of suspicion and antagonism, reinstatement was deemed inappropriate. The Court modified the award, granting separation pay equivalent to one month’s pay per year of service in lieu of reinstatement and limiting backwages to three years.