GR L 53552; (October, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53552 October 18, 1988
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EDUARDO PANGAN, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Eduardo Pangan was a lineman for petitioner PLDT. In 1977, an audit revealed that Pangan had pilfered company property. His accountability record showed he returned worthless materials valued at P2,402.00 to offset previous requisitions. During a confrontation, Pangan admitted selling two new leather belts and a handset, with a total cost of P1,609.00, for personal gain. He pleaded dire financial need due to expenses from a goiter operation. PLDT filed an application for clearance to terminate his services on grounds of theft and misappropriation, which was initially granted. Pangan later filed a complaint, which the Labor Arbiter dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Arbiter and ordered Pangan’s reinstatement without backwages.
The NLRC found mitigating circumstances: Pangan had once risked his life to protect company property during a fire, for which he received commendation; his act was driven by dire financial need; and considerable time had elapsed since his preventive suspension. The NLRC concluded these factors mitigated against the “supreme industrial penalty” of dismissal. PLDT filed this certiorari petition, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of an employee found guilty of theft and misappropriation of company property.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC decision. The legal logic is clear: theft of company property constitutes serious misconduct and a willful breach of trust, which are just causes for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Court emphasized that while it generally leans towards protecting workers, acts of dishonesty involving company property are treated differently. Such acts directly undermine the employer’s viability and the mutual trust essential to employment.
The mitigating circumstances cited by the NLRC, while factually present, do not negate the existence of a valid cause for termination. The Court balanced the worker’s plight with management’s rights, noting that an employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee whose continuance is patently inimical to its interests. The law protects labor but does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. Pangan’s admitted violation of both law and specific company rules, which prescribed dismissal for a first offense of selling company property, justified his termination. The NLRC’s order of reinstatement, despite this valid cause, constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.