[G.R. No. 191008, April 11 : 2011]
QUIRICO LOPEZ, PETITIONER, VS. ALTURAS GROUP OF COMPANIES AND/OR MARLITO UY, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Quirico Lopez (petitioner) was hired by respondent Alturas Group of Companies in 1997 as truck driver. Ten years later or sometime in November 2007, he was dismissed after he was allegedly caught by respondent's security guard in the act of attempting to smuggle out of the company premises 60 kilos of scrap iron worth P840 aboard respondents’ Isuzu Cargo Aluminum Van with Plate Number PHP 271 that was then assigned to him. When questioned, petitioner allegedly admitted to the security guard that he was taking out the scrap iron consisting of lift springs out of which he would make axes.
Petitioner, in compliance with the Show Cause Notice 1 dated December 5, 2007 issued by respondent company's Human Resource Department Manager, denied the allegations by a handwritten explanation written in the Visayan dialect.
Finding petitioner's explanation unsatisfactory, respondent company terminated his employment by Notice of Termination 2 effective December 14, 2007 on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence, and of violation of company rules and regulations. In issuing the Notice, respondent company also took into account the result of an investigation showing that petitioner had been smuggling out its cartons which he had sold, in conspiracy with one Maritess Alaba, for his own benefit to thus prompt it to file a criminal case for Qualified Theft 3 against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol. It had in fact earlier filed another criminal case for Qualified Theft 4 against petitioner arising from the theft of the scrap iron.
Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint against respondent company for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. He claimed that the smuggling charge against him was fabricated to justify his illegal dismissal; that the filing of the charge came about after he reported the loss of the original copy of his pay slip, which report, he went on to claim, respondent company took to mean that he could use the pay slip as evidence for filing a complaint for violation of labor laws; and that on account of the immediately stated concern of respondent, it forced him into executing an affidavit that if the pay slip is eventually found, it could not be used in any proceedings between them.
By Decision 5 of June 30, 2008, the Labor Arbiter, holding that the pendency of the criminal case involving the scrap iron did not warrant the suspension of the proceedings before him, held that petitioner's dismissal was justified, for he, a truck driver, held a position of trust and confidence, and his act of stealing company property was a violation of the trust reposed upon him.
Respecting the charge of underpayment of wages, the Labor Arbiter noted that on the basis of the records, petitioner had been paid the correct wages and benefits mandated by law.
The Labor Arbiter accordingly dismissed petitioner's complaint.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Fourth Division (Cebu City) set aside the Labor Arbiter's Decision by Decision 6 dated December 22, 2008, finding that respondent's evidence did not suffice to warrant the termination of petitioner's services; and that petitioner's alleged admission of taking the scrap iron was belied by his vehement denial, as even the security guard, one Gerardo Luega, who allegedly witnessed the asportation and before whom the alleged admission was made, did not even execute an affidavit in support thereof.
Citing Salaw v. NLRC, 7 the NLRC went on to hold that petitioner should have been afforded, or at least advised of the right to counsel. It thus held that any evaluation which was based only on the explanation to the show-cause letter and any so-called investigation but without confrontation of the vital witnesses, do[es] not suffice.
Petitioner, in compliance with the Show Cause Notice 1 dated December 5, 2007 issued by respondent company's Human Resource Department Manager, denied the allegations by a handwritten explanation written in the Visayan dialect.
Finding petitioner's explanation unsatisfactory, respondent company terminated his employment by Notice of Termination 2 effective December 14, 2007 on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence, and of violation of company rules and regulations. In issuing the Notice, respondent company also took into account the result of an investigation showing that petitioner had been smuggling out its cartons which he had sold, in conspiracy with one Maritess Alaba, for his own benefit to thus prompt it to file a criminal case for Qualified Theft 3 against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol. It had in fact earlier filed another criminal case for Qualified Theft 4 against petitioner arising from the theft of the scrap iron.
Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint against respondent company for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. He claimed that the smuggling charge against him was fabricated to justify his illegal dismissal; that the filing of the charge came about after he reported the loss of the original copy of his pay slip, which report, he went on to claim, respondent company took to mean that he could use the pay slip as evidence for filing a complaint for violation of labor laws; and that on account of the immediately stated concern of respondent, it forced him into executing an affidavit that if the pay slip is eventually found, it could not be used in any proceedings between them.
By Decision 5 of June 30, 2008, the Labor Arbiter, holding that the pendency of the criminal case involving the scrap iron did not warrant the suspension of the proceedings before him, held that petitioner's dismissal was justified, for he, a truck driver, held a position of trust and confidence, and his act of stealing company property was a violation of the trust reposed upon him.
Respecting the charge of underpayment of wages, the Labor Arbiter noted that on the basis of the records, petitioner had been paid the correct wages and benefits mandated by law.
The Labor Arbiter accordingly dismissed petitioner's complaint.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Fourth Division (Cebu City) set aside the Labor Arbiter's Decision by Decision 6 dated December 22, 2008, finding that respondent's evidence did not suffice to warrant the termination of petitioner's services; and that petitioner's alleged admission of taking the scrap iron was belied by his vehement denial, as even the security guard, one Gerardo Luega, who allegedly witnessed the asportation and before whom the alleged admission was made, did not even execute an affidavit in support thereof.
Citing Salaw v. NLRC, 7 the NLRC went on to hold that petitioner should have been afforded, or at least advised of the right to counsel. It thus held that any evaluation which was based only on the explanation to the show-cause letter and any so-called investigation but without confrontation of the vital witnesses, do[es] not suffice.
