G.R. No. 70177 June 25, 1986
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SERAFIN SAQUING, respondents.

FACTS

Serafin Saquing, a route salesman for San Miguel Corporation, was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence following an incident on August 6, 1981. At Dodee’s Store, owned by Dolores Santos, Saquing and his helper arranged 30 cases of supposed empty beer bottles. When the store owner inspected, she discovered six cases of full bottles concealed within the pile of empties. Santos executed a sworn statement alleging Saquing attempted to surreptitiously take the full goods. San Miguel, after investigation, cited this incident along with Saquing’s prior disciplinary record—a demotion for overcollection in 1980 and a 30-day suspension for theft in 1980—as grounds for dismissal.
Saquing filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ordered his reinstatement with backwages, finding his evidence superior to the company’s. The NLRC affirmed this decision, giving credence to a second affidavit from Santos where she retracted her initial statement, now claiming the inclusion of full bottles was a mere mistake and that a saleslady had overseen the loading. The NLRC held San Miguel failed to present sufficient evidence to justify dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision ordering Saquing’s reinstatement.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the NLRC resolution. The legal logic centers on the sufficiency of evidence to establish just cause for dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, and the NLRC’s capricious disregard of the factual record. The Court found the NLRC’s reliance on the second retracting affidavit unreasonable. This affidavit contradicted the consistent sworn statements of Saquing’s own helpers, who detailed the active arrangement of the piles, and the first affidavit of Santos. The late introduction of an overseeing saleslady was deemed an afterthought.
Crucially, the incident was not isolated. Saquing’s prior disciplinary record for serious offenses involving dishonesty (overcollection and consummated theft) was uncontested. For a salesman, a position of utmost trust requiring fidelity, these cumulative acts of dishonesty amply justified the loss of confidence. The employer’s right to dismiss an employee whose continuance is inimical to its interest is well-established. The NLRC’s conclusion, which ignored this record and the inherent improbability of the “mistake” claim given the helpers’ testimonies, constituted a grave abuse of discretion for being rendered capriciously and whimsically.