You are on page 1of 1

Mercury Drug Corp. vs.

NLRC,
GR 75662 September 15, 1989

Facts:

Herein is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the NLRC ordering the
reinstatement of private respondent Cesar Ladisla, an employee of herein petitioner Mercury Drug Corp.
Ladisla was hired by petitioner as its stock analyst who was caught stealing a number of medicines from
the store who admitted the same. He was suspended pending the hearing of the charges filed against him
and Mercury likewise filed for authorization with the Department of Labor to dismiss Ladisla on the
abovementioned ground. The application was however denied hence arbitration ensued while a criminal
case was filed against him for theft. Ladisla was convicted in the criminal case and the arbiter sustained
his dismissal however Ladisla only appealed his dismissal to which the NLRC ruled in his favor stating
therein no substantial evidence to establish the charge against Ladisla hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not Mercury may be compelled to reinstate Ladisla as found by the NLRC that his
dismissal had no substantial basis.

Ruling:

No, the Court held that dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest of not only the
management but also of labor. The Court has long recognized that an employer may dismiss its erring
employee as a measure of self-protection from the latter’s prejudicial acts. In light to this, an employer
may not be compelled to continue employing an employee guilty of acts inimical to its interests justifying
loss of confidence in him. The quantum of proof to establish the same is through substantial evidence
wherein the Court may find reasonable grounds to believe that the employee has committed misconduct
to warrant loss of trust. The Court further stated that eventual conviction of the employee as regards his
acts does not eliminate the fact of such loss in trust hence an employer may validly dismiss an employee
under such ground regardless of his conviction or acquittal from the complained charges against such
employee.

You might also like