GR L 73245; (September, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-73245 September 30, 1986
LAMSAN TRADING, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor and Employment, DANILO SARMIENTO, ISAGANI ACURIL, ROQUITO REYES, and RAFAEL TALAVER, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lamsan Trading, Inc. sought clearance from the Ministry of Labor to terminate the services of its rank-and-file employees, private respondents, on grounds of dishonesty/stealing related to alleged qualified theft of company property. The clearance was initially granted on December 26, 1978. The employees later filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal. Their appeal was dismissed by the Ministry on January 6, 1983, for failure to submit a required memorandum. The employees moved for reconsideration, explaining that their counsel from the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) had transmitted the records to the CLAO Special Appealed Cases Division in Manila, which negligently failed to file the memorandum. The Ministry, through Deputy Minister Leogardo, granted reconsideration in an order dated December 7, 1984, reversing itself, denying the clearance for termination, and ordering the employees’ reinstatement with three years’ backwages. Meanwhile, the criminal cases for qualified theft against the employees had been dismissed by the trial court for failure to prosecute, with the court noting the petitioner’s own motion to have the cases “written off” and its willingness to provide certificates of discharge.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Deputy Minister of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering and reversing the order granting clearance to terminate the employees and in denying the petitioner’s belated motion for reconsideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Deputy Minister did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on two key points: the lack of substantial evidence for dismissal and the excusable delay in procedural compliance by the employees. On the merits, the Court found the accusation of dishonesty was not substantiated by any evidence. The private respondents were ordinary rank-and-file employees (electricians and equipment operators), not holders of positions of trust where loss of confidence alone could justify dismissal. The dismissal of the criminal cases for failure to prosecute, coupled with the petitioner’s own actions suggesting a lack of evidence, underscored the absence of proof. The Deputy Minister’s reconsideration was a valid re-examination to correct an erroneous ruling, not an arbitrary act.
Regarding procedure, the Court held that the Deputy Minister correctly excused the employees’ nearly four-year delay in filing their memorandum on appeal. The delay was caused by the negligence of the CLAO division in Manila, not by the employees or their original counsel, who had promptly transmitted the records. Under the circumstances, where the original counsel could not handle the appeal and had to rely on another government office, the delay was excusable. The policy that technical rules must yield to substantial justice justified allowing the appeal. In contrast, the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed one day late without any explanation, warranting its denial. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.