G.R. No. L-50985. January 30, 1982.
KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA CAMARA SHOES, DEMETRIO RAMOS and ANANIAS ASTURIAS, petitioners, vs. CAMARA SHOES AND HEIRS OF SANTOS CAMARA, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND MINISTER OF LABOR, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, a labor union and two of its members, Demetrio Ramos and Ananias Asturias, charged Camara Shoes and its owner with unfair labor practice. The allegations involved illegal deductions from Ramos’s salary and his subsequent suspension, as well as the dismissal of Asturias due to their union activities. The respondents countered that Ramos was deducted amounts to repay company loans for medical expenses and purchased lumber, and was suspended for defacing the payroll by writing “under protest.” Asturias was dismissed for allegedly tampering with a receipt to overprice purchased needles by five pesos.
The Labor Arbiter found no unfair labor practice. He ruled Asturias was validly dismissed for dishonesty but ordered his reinstatement without backwages as an act of compassion, noting the minor amount involved. He deemed Ramos’s suspension justified and his case moot due to prior reinstatement. The National Labor Relations Commission and the Minister of Labor affirmed these rulings, leading to this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed, are supported by substantial evidence or constitute grave abuse of discretion, particularly regarding the validity of the dismissal of Asturias and the suspension of Ramos, and their entitlement to backwages.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the assailed orders, finding grave abuse of discretion. Regarding Asturias, the Court held his dismissal was not supported by substantial evidence. The claim that he altered a receipt to overcharge by five pesos was deemed unworthy of belief. The cashier gave him only P13.40 (P13.00 for needles, P0.40 for transport); thus, there was no basis to claim he sought reimbursement for a higher amount. Critical witnesses, like the cashier or store representative, were not presented to corroborate the employer’s self-serving testimony. His dismissal was therefore unjustified.
For Ramos, the Court found the salary deductions illegal. The alleged loans were unsubstantiated; the P500 lumber debt was particularly dubious given Ramos’s financial status and the timing of the claim during labor disputes. His act of writing “under protest” on the payroll was a legitimate exercise of his right to petition against unlawful deductions and constituted protected activity, not a valid cause for suspension.
Consequently, Asturias was entitled to reinstatement with back wages equivalent to three years without qualification. Ramos, having been illegally suspended for one month, was entitled to one month’s back wages. The decision was immediately executory.