G.R. No. 82467 June 29, 1989
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO B. DELEN, FELIPE P. MERCADO, ROGELIO Z. MISOLAS, HENRY S. LOGAN & EFREN M. QUERUBIN, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents, former security guards of San Miguel Corporation, were dismissed for falsifying their time cards. The evidence established that on February 19 and 20, 1983, they went on a hunting trip to Batangas with their department head, Major Martin Asaytuno. To conceal their absence, they made false entries in their time cards indicating they reported for work on those dates. Major Asaytuno, who had authorized overtime pay for the period, initialed the falsified cards. Subsequently, complainant Misolas was also caught red-handed punching not only his own time card but also the cards of his co-complainants.
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissals illegal, ruling the employees went on the trip due to a belief that Asaytuno’s invitation was a command requiring “total obedience.” The Arbiter also discredited the company’s evidence regarding the card-punching incident. Consequently, reinstatement with full backwages was ordered. The NLRC affirmed this decision. San Miguel Corporation elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision that the private respondents were illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the private respondents’ actions constituted serious misconduct and fraud, just causes for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The legal logic centered on the employees’ personal accountability and the inapplicability of the defense of obedience to a superior.
The Court rejected the finding that the employees were compelled to obey Asaytuno. While an inferior should generally obey a superior, this duty does not extend to following unlawful orders that contravene a higher positive duty. The act of falsifying time cards to collect unearned wages is a clear violation of law and a breach of the fundamental duty of honesty owed to the employer. The defense of obedience is only valid when both the order and its execution are within legal bounds. Here, the falsification was intrinsically illegal and fraudulent, regardless of Asaytuno’s involvement or initials on the cards.
The employees, as security guards, held positions of trust. Their deliberate acts of dishonesty in recording their attendance and attempting to collect wages for days not worked constituted a willful breach of that trust. The NLRC’s order for reinstatement was an unjustified departure from established jurisprudence, which holds that an employer cannot be compelled to retain employees guilty of misfeasance inimical to its interests. Therefore, the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were set aside, and the complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed.