GR 82866; (June, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 82866-67, June 29, 1989
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING AND REFINING CORPORATION (PASAR), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER JESSELITO LATOJA, RUFO ELUMIR, and EDGARDO VILBAR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner PASAR dismissed employees Rufo Elumir and Edgardo Vilbar on December 23, 1985, for alleged pilferage of dore metal (containing precious metals like gold and silver). The dismissal was based on a confession by security guard Henry Berezo, who implicated the employees in a pilferage syndicate. Berezo’s statement detailed specific instances where he claimed Vilbar and Elumir brought out dore metal and gave him cash shares. PASAR formed an Investigation Committee, which placed the employees under preventive suspension and, after proceedings, found them guilty of conspiring in the theft.
The Labor Arbiter, however, found the evidence for dismissal insufficient. The decision noted that Berezo’s uncorroborated confession was the sole evidence against the employees, describing it as coming from a “polluted source” likely intended to deflect blame. The Arbiter highlighted logical gaps: the complainants were assigned to the Selenium Section, not the Dore Section, and plant rules prohibited cross-access. Furthermore, multiple security checkpoints with metal detectors existed. The NLRC affirmed the Arbiter’s decision ordering reinstatement with full backwages. PASAR petitioned, arguing the dismissal was for a just cause (loss of trust and confidence due to theft).
ISSUE
Did the NLRC act with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the dismissal of the private respondents was illegal?
RULING
No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, emphasizing that such findings, when based on substantial evidence, are binding. The Court agreed that PASAR failed to substantiate its charge of theft with adequate evidence. Berezo’s confession alone, lacking corroboration and replete with inconsistencies regarding how the theft could have physically occurred given strict plant security and the complainants’ work assignments, was insufficient to prove misconduct. Suspicion or belief, no matter how sincere, cannot replace factual proof established through orderly procedure.
While the Court found the dismissal illegal due to absence of just cause, it modified the reinstatement order. It recognized that the employer-employee relationship had been strained by the serious allegations of dishonesty. Compelling PASAR to reinstate employees whose honesty it sincerely doubted would be impractical and foster an atmosphere of distrust. Therefore, in lieu of reinstatement, PASAR was ordered to pay the private respondents separation benefits in addition to three years of backwages without qualification or deduction. The award of backwages was proper as the dismissal was unjustified, but reinstatement was deemed inappropriate due to the strained relations.