GR 84302; (August, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84302 August 10, 1989
Angelito Hernandez, petitioner, vs. The National Labor Relations Commission (Fifth Division), Hi-Line Timber Corporation and/or Jaime Matchoka, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Angelito Hernandez was employed as a driver and utility man by respondent Hi-Line Timber Corporation. On August 30, 1985, he was dismissed from employment. Hernandez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging he was summarily dismissed after being forced to pay for two truck tires under threat of termination, and was coerced to sign a resignation letter. He contended the tires were damaged due to ordinary wear and tear from hauling heavy loads. Conversely, the company accused Hernandez of theft, specifically replacing a company truck tire with an older, inferior one. They reported the incident to the police, leading to a criminal complaint for qualified theft, and terminated Hernandez on grounds of breach of trust and loss of confidence.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal and upholding Hernandez’s termination based on loss of confidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the NLRC decision and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling with modification. The Court held that the NLRC’s affirmation of the dismissal lacked substantial evidence. The NLRC relied heavily on the criminal complaint for theft and affidavits from company employees, concluding these provided a valid basis for loss of confidence. The Court found this reliance misplaced. The criminal complaint was merely an accusation, not proof of guilt. The affidavits of co-employees were deemed insufficient as they were not subjected to cross-examination and their credibility was untested. The company failed to present concrete evidence, such as the allegedly replaced tire itself or any corroborative physical evidence, to substantiate the theft charge.
The legal logic is clear: while loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissal, it must rest on a substantive foundation and not on mere suspicion, conjecture, or uncorroborated accusations. The employer bears the burden of proving the act justifying the loss of trust. Here, the evidence was tenuous and unreliable. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. However, due to the strained relations between the parties, the Court ordered separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, plus backwages not exceeding three years. The NLRC’s decision, being unsupported by substantial evidence, constituted grave abuse of discretion.