GR L 5594; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953
ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., petitioner, vs. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, respondent.
FACTS
Aclayan Bayo, a laborer of the Atok-Big-Wedge Mining Co., Inc., was suspended and later dismissed after being allegedly apprehended on February 28, 1951, by a company policeman with a bag of gold ores concealed under his armpit under cover of darkness. The propriety of the dismissal was brought before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). Initially, in a decision dated December 8, 1951, the CIR authorized the dismissal. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the CIR in banc, in a resolution dated March 4, 1952, set aside its original decision and ordered the company to reinstate Bayo and pay him back wages from February 28, 1951, until actual reinstatement. The company appealed via certiorari. The CIR held that Bayo was entitled to reinstatement because there was no evidence whatsoever of the alleged breach of trust or any sufficient reason to distrust him, not merely because he was acquitted in a related theft case before the Justice of the Peace Court of Itogon, Mountain Province.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in ordering the reinstatement of Aclayan Bayo on the factual finding that there was no evidence of breach of trust, a finding which the petitioner mining company seeks to overturn.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court held that the CIR’s finding—that the alleged breach of trust was not supported by any evidence—is a finding of fact. In this certiorari proceeding, the Supreme Court is not authorized to review, much less alter, such factual determinations. The petitioner’s contention, that the acquittal in the criminal case did not negate the factual possession of gold ores and that dismissal was justified based on facts tending to show breach of trust, would require the Supreme Court to interfere with the CIR’s factual ruling, which it cannot do. The appealed resolution was therefore affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.