G.R. No. L-70479 February 27, 1987
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Carlos Lariosa and National Labor Relations Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Carlos Lariosa, a tire builder for Firestone since 1972, was dismissed on August 2, 1983, for “stealing company property and loss of trust.” The dismissal stemmed from an incident on July 27, 1983, when company security guards, during a routine inspection, found sixteen wool flannel swabs belonging to the company concealed inside his personal bag underneath his soiled clothes. Lariosa claimed he had no intention to steal, having merely forgotten the swabs after they were given to him for work. The security guard’s report, however, indicated Lariosa stated the swabs were for “home use” and that he hastily left the premises when confronted.
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal justified. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the decision, holding the penalty of dismissal was too severe. The NLRC ordered Lariosa’s reinstatement without backwages, treating his absence as a suspension. Firestone then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Carlos Lariosa despite finding substantial evidence of his attempted theft of company property.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the NLRC decision. The Court held that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. First, the Court addressed a procedural issue regarding the timeliness of Lariosa’s appeal to the NLRC, which was filed four days late based on a “working days” instruction in the notice, contrary to the “calendar days” rule. The Court opted to overlook this lapse, noting the rule is for the employee’s benefit and to resolve the case on its merits.
On the substantive issue, the Court found that Lariosa’s act constituted dishonesty warranting dismissal. The evidence, including the security guards’ statements and Lariosa’s conduct upon discovery, substantiated the charge of attempted theft. The Court emphasized that acts of dishonesty involving company property, especially by an employee in a position of trust like a tire builder entrusted with materials, constitute serious misconduct and a willful breach of trust under Article 283 of the Labor Code. Firestone validly exercised its management prerogative to dismiss an employee it could no longer trust. The company also complied with due process, having conducted a proper investigation before termination.
However, in the interest of compassionate justice, considering Lariosa’s eleven years of service with no prior bad record, the Court modified the penalty. Instead of reinstatement, it ordered Firestone to pay Lariosa full separation pay in accordance with law, collective bargaining agreement, or company practice, whichever was higher. The NLRC’s order of reinstatement without backwages was set aside.