HOCHENG PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, 

Petitioner, v. ANTONIO M. FARRALES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211497,
March 18, 2015
REYES, J.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari in the decision of court of appeals which reversed the decision of the
National Labor Relations Commissions and reinstated with modifications the decision of the Labor Arbiter which found
respondent Antonio Farrales illegally dismissed by Hocheng Philippines Corporation.

Farrales is an employee of Hocheng Philppines Corporation which was promoted from being a production operator
followed by Leadman in 2004, acting assistant unit chief in 2007 and Assistant Unit Chief of Production in 2008. A
consistent recipient of citations for outstanding performance , appraisal and year-end bonuses.

On December 2009, a report reached HPC management that a motorcylec helmet of Reymar Solas one of their employee
was stolen at the parking lot within its premises. Upon checking of the Closed-circuit television (CCTV) it showed that
respondent Farrales took the missing helmet from the parked motorcycle.

HPC, upon asking respondent to explain his involvement, explained that he borrowed a helmet from his co-worker eric
libutan since they reside in the same barangay. He and Eric agreed that Eric could get it at his house or the latter can
return it next time they will see each other. He was also told by Eric that the latter’s motorbike is black and so on the
parking as there are many motorcycles with helmets, he asked another employee, Andy Lopega who was in the parking
lot to hand him over the supposed helmet of eric.

On the following month when he saw Eric on the workplace and told him about the helmet he realized that he get the
wrong helmet in which he immediately notify the guard and report the situation.

However, HPC issued a notice of termination to Farrales dismissing him for violation of Art. 69, Class A, Item No. 29 of
the HPC Code of Discipline which provides that “stealing from the company, its employees and officials, or from its
contractors, visitors or clients,” is akin to serious misconduct and fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative, which are just causes for termination of employment
under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

Respondent Farrales filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of appraisal and mid-year bonuses, service
incentive pay and 13th month pay.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor or Farrales.

HPC appealed, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and denied Farrales’ motion for reconsideration.

Respondent then filed a petition to the Court of Appeals, in which he sought to refute NLRC’s factual finding that he
committed theft.

The appellate court agreed to the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that Farrales’ act of taking Reymar’s helmet did not
amount to theft.

Hence the petition.

Issue: WON Hocheng Philippines Corporation herein petitioner illegally dismissed Antonio Farrales (respondent).

Ruling: Yes. Farrales committed no serious or willful misconduct or disobedience to warrant his dismissal. To validly
dismiss an employee, the law requires the employer to prove the existence of any of the valid or authorized causes,
Article 282 of the Labor Code provides:
a. serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or the latter’s
representative in connection with his work;
b. gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
c. fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or his duly authorized representative;
d. commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his
family or his duly authorized representative;
e. other causes analogous to the foregoing.

The above causes are not present in this case. Theft committed by an employee against a person other than his
employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious misconduct. Farrales upon knowing that he
mistakenly took Reymar’s helmet lost no time in returning it to the latter. He immediately admitted his error to the
company guard and sought help to find the owner of the yellow helmet which shows that he did indeed mistakenly think
that the helmet he took belonged to Eric. Also, when Farrales told Andy that the yellow helmet was his, his intent was not
to put up a pretense of ownership over it but rather simply to assuage Andy’s reluctance to heed his passing request to
reach for the helmet for him since Andy was already seated in his motorbike and was about to drive out when Farrales
made his request. As Farrales claim that he and Eric were neighbors, they resided in the same barangay, and loosely,
were neighbors. And lastly, HPC was not prejudiced in any way by Farrales’ conduct since the helmet did not belong to it
but to Reymar.

Thus, HPC not showing a clear, valid and legal cause of termination of employment considers the matter is of illegal
dismissal.