Professional Documents
Culture Documents
* THIRD DIVISION.
Same; Same; Same; An employee who has been exonerated
from a criminal charge may still be dismissed; Reason.—We have
held that the eventual conviction of the employee who is
581
prosecuted for his misconduct is not indispensable to warrant his
dismissal by his employer. More specifically, an employee who has
been exonerated from a criminal charge of theft of gasoline on the
basis of technicality may still be dismissed from employment if
the employer has ample reason to mistrust him. If acquittal from
VOL. 177, SEPTEMBER 15, 1989 581 the criminal charge does not negate the existence of a ground for
loss of trust and confidence, with more reason should conviction
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. NLRC for such criminal charge fortify said mistrust.
_______________ _______________
585
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. NLRC
VOL. 177, SEPTEMBER 15, 1989 585
3
dent-accused guilty of the crime of simple theft. No appeal Mercury Drug Corporation vs. NLRC
was taken from the decision in the subject criminal case,
private respondent having availed himself of the benefits of is in complete and utter disregard of the Regional Trial
the Probation Law. He was eventually discharged from Court’s conviction of private respondent for the crime of
probation on December 27, 1984,
4
after complying with the simple theft which decision was rendered prior to its own
terms and conditions thereof. assailed decision. It must be remembered that proceedings
On April 30, 1986, public respondent National Labor in criminal cases such as that held in the subject criminal
Relations Commission reversed the decision of the Labor case require proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish the
Arbiter because it found no substantial evidence guilt of the accused and findings of fact of the trial court on
establishing the charge against private respondent Ladisla this matter are generally accorded great weight by
stating thus: appellate courts most especially where no appeal had been
filed thereafter, thus rendering the said findings final. As
“WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby set aside mentioned earlier, private respondent did not appeal from
and a new one entered ordering respondent to immediately the decision of the lower court but instead availed himself
reinstate him in (sic)
5
his former position with full back wages. of the benefits of the probation law which was
SO ORDERED.” correspondingly granted by the Regional Trial Court.
Dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the
not only of management but also of labor. As a measure of
aforementioned decision, which was denied by public
selfprotection against acts inimical to its interest, a
respondent Commission in its resolution dated July 24,
6
company has the right to dismiss its erring employees. An
1986. Hence, this petition assailing the latter’s reversal of
employer cannot be compelled to continue in employment
the labor arbiter’s decision and its order for the
an employee guilty of acts inimical to its interest, justifying
reinstatement with full back wages of private respondent.
loss of confidence in him. The law does not 7 impose unjust
Petitioner submits that it was serious legal error on the
situations on either labor or management. We therefore
part of public respondent to order the reinstatement of
find justification in the termination of private respondent
private respondent who was convicted of the crime of
Cesar E. Ladisla’s employment by petitioner Mercury Drug
simple theft by Judge Pedro Ramirez in Criminal Case No.
Corporation.
43096 filed by petitioner against said private respondent-
Under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, an employer
employee involving the same facts obtaining in the present
may terminate an employment for “fraud or willful breach
case for termination. On the other hand, private
by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
respondent maintains that he was a victim of revenge and
employer or his duly authorized representative.” Loss of
incriminatory machinations as the charge of qualified theft
confidence is established as a valid ground for the
of company property was a frame-up.
dismissal of an employee. The law does not require proof
We hold that public respondent National Labor
beyond reasonable doubt of the employee’s misconduct to
Relations Commission committed a grave abuse of
invoke such a justification. It is sufficient that there is
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding no
some basis for the loss of trust or that the employer has
substantial evidence to sustain the charge against private
reasonable grounds to believe that the employee is
respondent. This conclusion
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745b781b4ca0bedf4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745b781b4ca0bedf4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
9/5/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177 9/5/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
responsible for the misconduct and his participation occurrence of the alleged pilferage of medicines and where
therein renders him unworthy
8
of the trust and confidence he was given the opportunity to state his defenses, and
demanded of his position. thereafter, before the arbitration branch of the Department
of Labor where he was required and did submit his position
_______________ paper.
The law in protecting the rights of the laborer,
7 Piedad v. Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., 153 SCRA 500, authorizes11 neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
509 [1987]; International Hardwood & Veneer Co. of the Phils. v. employer. While the Constitution is committed to the
Leogardo, Jr., 117 SCRA 967 [1982]. policy of social justice and
8 Piedad v. Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., 153 SCRA 500,
508 [1987]; Dole Phil., Inc. v. NLRC, 123 SCRA 673 [1983].
_______________
586 9 San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, 128 SCRA 180, 181 [1984].
10 Philippine Geothermal, Inc. v. NLRC, 117 SCRA 692-693 [1982].
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 11 Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Zulueta, 69 Phil. 485 [1939] cited in
Allied Banking Corporation v. Castro, 156 SCRA 789, 800 [1987].
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. NLRC
587
Private respondent’s admission of his guilt as earlier
stated, his subsequent conviction in Criminal Case No. VOL. 177, SEPTEMBER 15, 1989 587
43096 and his acceptance of the same as implied in the
absence of an appeal therefrom and his subsequent Mercury Drug Corporation vs. NLRC
application for probation established beyond reasonable
doubt his guilt for the crime of simple theft. It was this the protection of the working class, it should not be
same act which gave rise to his conviction by the trial court supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically
that was the basis for the termination of his employment decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own
by petitioner. rights, which, as such, are entitled to respect and
We have held that the eventual conviction of the enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its
employee who is prosecuted for his misconduct is not9 concern for those with less privileges in life, the Supreme
indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer. Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker
More specifically, an employee who has been exonerated and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer.
from a criminal charge of theft of gasoline on the basis of Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the
technicality may still be dismissed from employment
10
if the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be
employer has ample reason to mistrust him. If acquittal dispensed in the light of12 the established facts and
from the criminal charge does not negate the existence of a applicable law and doctrine.
ground for loss of trust and confidence, with more reason WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution of the National
should conviction for such criminal charge fortify said Labor Relations Commission is reversed and set aside and
mistrust. the Labor Arbiter’s decision of November 8, 1979
Anent private respondent’s claim of summary dismissing Cesar E. Ladisla as petitioner’s stock analyst is
suspension without being given the opportunity to be hereby reinstated. No costs.
heard, the Court takes note that, in addition to the fact SO ORDERED.
that his suspension was merely preventive pending
approval by the Department of Labor of its application for Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortés, JJ., concur.
clearance to terminate the services of private respondent, Feliciano, J., on leave.
the latter was given the chance to defend himself in several
Resolution reversed and set aside.
instances: at the Police Precinct No. III, Western Police
District, Metro Manila where he was brought for
investigation or questioning immediately after the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745b781b4ca0bedf4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745b781b4ca0bedf4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
9/5/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
——o0o——
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745b781b4ca0bedf4f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9