GR 96646; (February, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96646 February 8, 1993
Delfin Palagpag, petitioner, vs. Hon. National Labor Relations Commission and Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Delfin Palagpag was a regular employee of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company since 1972. During his employment, he accumulated a record of twenty-one (21) warnings for being Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) and one warning for a safety violation (“firepoling”). The last and most serious incident occurred on July 19, 1987, when he was apprehended by company security guards for taking gold-bearing rocks from the company premises. He was preventively suspended and directed to answer the charge of highgrading. Instead of submitting an explanation to the company, he provided a copy of a sworn statement given to the police. Lepanto filed a criminal complaint for frustrated highgrading against him. Petitioner, in turn, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. Petitioner was later acquitted in the criminal case.
ISSUE
1. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the validity of the dismissal.
2. Whether due process was observed in the termination.
3. Whether the acquittal in the criminal case justifies reinstatement.
RULING
The petition was denied. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Due process was observed as petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard and present his defense but waived this right by refusing to give a statement to the company and failing to submit an explanation. Acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically guarantee reinstatement. The employer has the right to dismiss an employee for loss of confidence, which does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt but only “some basis” or reasonable grounds to believe the employee committed the misconduct. Given petitioner’s long history of infractions (21 AWOL warnings) and the act of taking company property (highgrading), which breached the trust inherent in the employer-employee relationship, the dismissal was valid. The company has the right to protect its interests against acts inimical to it.