GR 82478; (September, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82478 September 7, 1989
Juanito de Asis, et al., petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Michael Martir, owner/proprietor of F/B Nenita, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners were crew members of the fishing boat F/B Nenita, owned by private respondent Michael Martir, employed from June 20, 1974. On May 23, 1981, they were dismissed from employment. The private respondent alleged that from December 1980 to April 1981, the petitioners violated a company memorandum by docking at unauthorized ports to barter or sell the boat’s catch, causing him financial loss. He filed criminal complaints for qualified theft against them, leading to their detention, though the cases were eventually dismissed.
The private respondent secured a clearance for the termination from the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) only on May 26, 1981, three days after the actual dismissal on May 23. The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking various monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay to some petitioners but dismissed other claims. The NLRC affirmed this decision on appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of the petitioners was valid, and what are the legal consequences of the employer’s failure to secure prior clearance from the MOLE for the termination.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC resolution. The Court ruled that the dismissal was for a just and lawful cause, specifically loss of confidence due to the alleged acts of dishonesty. The employer’s act of filing criminal charges, though later withdrawn, substantiated the existence of a valid ground for termination. Therefore, reinstatement and the award of separation pay were not warranted.
However, the termination was procedurally defective. At the time, Presidential Decree No. 850 and related regulations required an employer to secure a prior clearance from the MOLE before effecting a dismissal. The private respondent’s act of securing clearance only three days after the dismissal constituted a failure to comply with this mandatory procedural requirement. While this procedural lapse did not invalidate the dismissal based on a just cause, it rendered the employer liable for indemnity. Following the precedent in Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC, the Court ordered the private respondent to indemnify each petitioner in the amount of P1,000.00 for his failure to observe the statutory clearance requirement.