G.R. No. 92878. March 6, 1992.
EDUARDO PATNA-AN, petitioner, vs. THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo Patna-an, a lead miner since 1976, was dismissed by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company for attempted highgrading. The company alleged that on May 26, 1984, security guards apprehended him in a restricted area with pulverized stones believed to be highgrade. He was preventively suspended, and a notice of termination was served. Patna-an denied the accusation, claiming it was fabricated by guards seeking rewards. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Executive Labor Arbiter, while finding the company’s witnesses credible regarding the incident, still ruled the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages, citing insufficient proof that the confiscated material was actually highgrade.
The company appealed to the NLRC. Patna-an did not appeal the Arbiter’s ancillary finding that due process was observed. The NLRC reversed the Arbiter’s decision, finding the dismissal valid. It held that the evidence substantially proved the offense and emphasized Patna-an’s disciplinary record, which included past suspensions for theft of highgrade ore and company lumber. Patna-an then filed this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Executive Labor Arbiter and upholding the validity of Patna-an’s dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC. The legal logic rests on two primary grounds. First, on the merits, the NLRC correctly found just cause for dismissal. The evidence, including the positive testimonies of the guards and Patna-an’s presence in a restricted area, provided substantial basis for the charge of attempted highgrading, an act of serious misconduct and willful breach of trust. The Court emphasized that the NLRC properly considered Patna-an’s past infractions, where he had been previously suspended for similar acts of dishonesty (theft of highgrade and lumber), as an aggravating circumstance demonstrating a pattern of conduct that justified the ultimate penalty of dismissal.
Second, the Court delineated the limited scope of certiorari review under Rule 65. Such a petition only questions jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion, not the correctness of the NLRC’s evaluation of evidence. Patna-an failed to demonstrate that the NLRC acted capriciously or whimsically. Its decision was grounded on the evidence and applicable jurisprudence. Furthermore, by not appealing the Labor Arbiter’s finding on due process, Patna-an was bound by it, leaving no procedural defect to assail. Thus, the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in its ruling.