Labor Law 1
A2010 - 187 -
- NLRC affirmed the Arbiter's decision; said that since Meralcowas charging Masaya of a criminal offense, it should provebeyond reasonable doubt (pbrd) said crime which it was notable to do as it was not shown that Masaya was given theopportunity to be heard by counsel or at least, a representativeto confront his accuser; that based on the doctrine of PBRD,there is no causal connection between Masaya' s duties to thecrime imputed to him, mere substantial evidence is insufficientto hold Masaya guilty of installing electrical connection let alonedeprive him of his right to labor."
WON the LA & the NLRC committed GABD in failing to take intoconsideration or excluding Masaya’s admissions in theirprononcement that Masaya was illegally dismissed
NLRC’S ERROR:- Masaya was in truth asked if he wished to be assisted by alawyer or a representative of his Union, and his response was inthe negative because, in his own words, "
ang sasabihin konaman dito ay pawang katotohanan lamang
"- In administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, PBRD is notrequired as basis for a judgment of the legality of an employer'sdismissal of an employee, nor even preponderance of evidence,substantial evidence being sufficient.- LC: ”the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equityshall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of thisCode that the Commission and its members and the LaborArbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertainthe facts in each case speedily and objectively and withoutregard to the technicalities of law or procedure, all in theinterest of due process. . . .- SC: the ground for an employer's dismissal of an employeeneed be established only by substantial evidence.
- It is absolutely of no consequence that the misconduct withwhich an employee may be charged also constitutes a criminaloffense-The proceedings being administrative, the quantum of proof isgoverned by the substantial evidence rule and not, as therespondent Commission seems to imagine, by the rulegoverning judgments in criminal actions.-The Court cannot close its eyes to the following facts of record,to wit:1) the reality of the illegal electrical connection;2) the letter to Masaya accusing him of misconduct3) Masaya's acknowledgment that, having a copy of thecompany's code of discipline, he understood the nature of theaccusation against him, and his declining to be assisted by alawyer or a representative of his Union because, according tohim, "
ang sasabihin ko naman dito ay pawang katotohananlamang
;"4) his voluntary admission that it was he who had made theillegal electrical connection, describing the manner by whichhe had made it, and that he had received P250.00 from theoccupant of the house, Antonio Sanchez; and5) his plea to the company for forgiveness for having madethe illegal connection.- on record: testimony regarding identification of Masaya byAntonio Sanchez' servants and by Castañeda, the owner of thehouse occupied by Sanchez.- nothing in the record to demonstrate that Masaya'sadmissions were made otherwise than voluntarily.- Such an offense is obviously of so serious a character as tomerit the penalty of dismissal from employment, as stated inthe Meralco Code on Employee Discipline:
SECTION 7. Dishonesty. — xxx xxx xxx 3) Directly or indirectly tampering with electric meters or metering installation of the Company or the installation of any device, with the purpose of defrauding the Company.
-The Labor Code pronounces
"fraud or willful breach by theemployee of the trust reposed in him by his employer orduly authorized representative," or "serious misconduct"on the part of the employee to be lawful ground toterminate employment.
And this Court has held that the
"dismissal of adishonest employee is as much in the interests of laboras it is of management. The labor force in any companyis protected and the workers' security of tenurestrengthened when pilferage of equipment, goods andproducts which endangers the viability of an employerand, therefore, the workers' continued employment isminimized or eliminated and consequently labor-management relations based on mutual trust andconfidence are promoted."
(*IN short: Tenurial Security is not an absolute right for the lawprovides that an employee may be dismissed for just cause. )
is GRANTED, the decisions of the NLRC and LA are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, and the
of the employment of privaterespondent is
AUTHORIZED and APPROVED
CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION V NLRC (RUIZ)
258 SCRA 621MENDOZA; July 11, 1996
Special civil action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
- Private respondent Ruiz was the internal auditor of petitionerCitytrust Banking Corporation. She was designated manager of the Quiapo branch of the bank, but she refused theappointment on the ground that it was a demotion. As aconsequence, she was suspended and, upon clearance given bythe Department of Labor, she was terminated on November 8,1974.- Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Shewas ordered reinstated as branch manager, the NLRC urgingher to accept the position, otherwise her refusal would beconsidered a ground for her loss of employment. Privaterespondent appealed to the Minister of Labor (now Secretary of Labor and Employment) but again she lost. Both parties thenappealed to the Office of the President, which orderedpetitioner to reinstate private respondent to her former positionas internal auditor and to pay her backwages from the time hercompensation was withheld up to the time of her reinstatement.- Petitioner moved for a reconsideration on the ground that theposition of internal auditor had been abolished (although theposition of resident inspector was created in its stead), andtherefore in lieu of reinstatement, it should only be made to payprivate respondent's separation pay. The Office of thePresident modified its decision and ordered petitioner toreinstate private respondent to a substantially equivalentposition without loss of seniority rights and to grant her thebenefits and privileges to which she would be entitled had shenot been dismissed.- Subsequently, petitioner reinstated private respondent asmanager of the Auditing Department. Private respondentaccepted the appointment but questioned her reinstatement tothat position on the ground that it was not substantiallyequivalent to the position of resident inspector (the positioncreated in place of internal auditor). She also questioned theaward of backwages as the report of the socio-economic analystallegedly did not include backwages from April 1974 to June1974 when she was on leave with pay and vacation and sickleave in 1974 and other fringe benefits to which she wasentitled before her termination.- Labor Arbiter Apolinario N. Lumabao issued an order holdingthat the position of manager of the Auditing Department wasnot substantially equivalent to that of resident inspector.possible as it appears (that) the position is already filled up (,) torelocate complainant to a substantially equivalent position with