GR 91644; (October, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91644 October 18, 1990
CONTINENTAL ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING CO., INC. (CASCO), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EDGARDO MALIZA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Continental Arrastre and Stevedoring Co., Inc. (CASCO) dismissed private respondent Edgardo Maliza, a head vessel checker, for allegedly instigating a work stoppage on April 8, 1988, on board M/V Central Visayas. The termination memorandum cited affidavits from company personnel stating Maliza ordered stevedores and equipment operators to stop work, constituting serious misconduct. Maliza submitted a written explanation denying he caused any stoppage. He asserted that he and other union officers merely approached the night duty officer to negotiate for the payment of their long-overdue salaries, warning of a potential protest the next day if unpaid. The company proceeded with the dismissal.
Maliza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision, dismissing petitioner’s appeal. CASCO elevated the case via certiorari, arguing the dismissal was for a just cause and also citing Maliza’s past infractions as indicative of his unfitness.
ISSUE
Was the dismissal of Edgardo Maliza for serious misconduct justified?
RULING
No, the dismissal was not justified. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. The Court emphasized that factual findings of administrative agencies like the NLRC are generally binding and conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner failed to present a cogent reason to overturn this rule. The core issue was the existence of the alleged work stoppage. The NLRC found no such stoppage occurred, rendering the charge of instigation baseless. The Court found Maliza’s explanation—that the incident was merely a negotiation for overdue wages—more credible, especially since the salaries were paid the following day, averting any planned protest.
Regarding Maliza’s past infractions, the Court noted these had already been the subject of a prior NLRC case where he was penalized with a 15-day suspension. These previous offenses could not be resurrected to justify a new dismissal for a separate alleged act that was itself unproven. The dismissal, therefore, lacked both factual and legal basis. The petition was rendered moot by Maliza’s reinstatement during the pendency of the case, but the Court proceeded to resolve the merits to definitively settle the parties’ rights.