THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 225660. October 06, 2021
DIONISIO S. DE CILLO, Petitioner, v. MOUNTAIN STAR TEXTILE MILLS, INC./ FIRST UNITY TEXTILE MILLS, INC., AND RICHARD C. TAN, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Despite the existence of a valid cause for disciplinary action, dismissal should not be imposed if it is too severe a penalty, especially if the erring employee has been in the service of their employer for a considerable length of time.
This resolves a Petition for Review1 on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals that affirmed the Resolution4 of the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission earlier reversed the Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter, which found that Dionisio De Cillo was illegally dismissed by Mountain Star Textile Mills, Inc.
The facts are as follows:
In 1999, Mountain Star hired De Cillo as a quality control supervisor at its Montalban office. A decade later, it designated him as a warehouseperson in charge of securing its warehouse and the stocks within its premises. De Cillo was eventually transferred to the Quezon City compound of the company. There, he was provided living accommodations given that his working hours usually last from 3:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. and from 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
During the company's Christmas Party in 2012, De Cillo claimed he found a desk fan worth P500.00 and an electric kettle in the guardhouse. The security guard on duty allegedly informed him that the items were prizes he won in the raffle. De Cillo then brought the items to his quarters for his personal use.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On March 11, 2013, his wife informed him through text that their electric fan at home broke down. That was when he decided to bring the electric fan home to Montalban, Rizal. To do this, he secured a gate pass from the compound security. The gate pass was approved by Ms. Elisa Gisala, assistant to the president of Mountain Star.8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sometime later, however, De Cillo was instructed to bring the desk fan back to the compound to verify its ownership. He was then asked to explain why he had brought the desk fan home. He was also notified of his 30-day suspension pending investigation of his case.9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On May 8, 2013, De Cillo was informed that his services had been terminated. Mountain Star claimed the dismissal was due to his serious misconduct of bringing home an electric fan owned by its supplier.10chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
After receiving a letter of termination, De Cillo filed a Complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission for illegal dismissal, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.11chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Labor Arbiter held that De Cillo had been illegally dismissed.12 They held that in labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. In this case, Mountain Star failed to establish the ownership of the electric fan given the absence of any documentary evidence on this point. On the other hand, De Cillo had already been using the electric fan for months without any protest from the company. That he obtained a gate pass for the electric fan tended to show that he believed he owned the electric fan.13chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Mountain Star Textile Mills is hereby found guilty of illegal dismissal and is ordered to pay the complainant the total sum of P378,324.77 representing complainant's backwages and separation pay.Mountain Star appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.14chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents-appellants' appeal is GRANTED. The decision dated October 10, 2013 is VACATED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.De Cillo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the National Labor Relations Commission denied.18chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SO ORDERED.17chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Evidence would show that the said desk fan which the petitioner brought out of the company premises was not his own. He took the desk fan out of the company premises, for his own personal use. It was a deliberate act on his part to take property belonging to the company. His allegation that he won the same in the company Christmas Party in December 2012 is belied by his own statement in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that during the said party, he went on roving and that when he returned to the guardhouse, he was given the kettle and the said desk fan by one L/G Calimag, who was then on duty. Petitioner was told by Calimag that he (petitioner) won those items in the raffle. It must be noted that petitioner himself had no personal knowledge that he won the said desk fan in the party as he himself admitted that he was not there to witness the raffle. Other than petitioner's allegation of ownership of the desk fan, nothing is presented to substantiate such claim. On the contrary, evidence for the private respondents, such as the entries in the log book of the security guards and statements of the other employees, would prove that petitioner did not win the said desk fan, that the same does not belong to him but a sample from one of the company's supplier, and he brought the same out of the company premises.21 (Citations omitted)The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.The Court of Appeals also denied De Cillo's Motion for Reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.22chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In a decided case involving theft of company property, [m]isconduct was defined as "the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment." For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law, "(a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and, (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer."31chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryDespite outlining how misconduct may justify dismissal under the law, the Court of Appeals did not relate petitioner's acts to the enumerated circumstances. It did not show how his actions justified dismissal, considering no wrongful intent is apparent.
This Court has held time and again, in a number of decisions, that notwithstanding the existence of a valid cause for dismissal, such as breach of trust by an employee, nevertheless, dismissal should not be imposed, as it is too severe a penalty if the latter has been employed for a considerable length of time in the service of [their] employer.The Labor Code provides that an employee unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement, as well as backwages until their actual reinstatement.39 Petitioner is thus entitled to backwages from his illegal dismissal in 2013 until his reinstatement.
In a similar case, this Court ruled:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary"As repeatedly been held by this Court, an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of breach of trust [toward] [their] employer and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to its interest. The law in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorized neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.
"However, taking into account private respondent's 'twenty-three (23) years of service which undisputedly is unblemished by any previous derogatory record' as found by the respondent Commission itself, and since he has been under preventive suspension during the pendency of this case, in the absence of a showing that the continued employment of private respondent would result in petitioner's oppression or self destruction, We are of the considered view that his dismissal is a drastic punishment ...xxx xxx xxx
"The ends of social and compassionate justice would therefore be served if private respondent is reinstated but without backwages in view of petitioner's obvious good faith."38 (Citations omitted)
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2839 dated September 16, 2021.
1 Rollo, pp. 21-40.
2 Id. at 45-53. The May 14, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. SP. 136549 was penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a member of this Court) and Agnes Reyes-Carpio.
3 Id. at 55-56. The December 29, 2015 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP. 136549 was penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a member of this Court) and Agnes Reyes-Carpio.
4 Id. at 81-89. The February 28, 2014 Resolution in NLRC NCR Case No. 06-08728-13 was penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III of the Third Division of the National Labor Relations Commission.
5 Id. at 74-80. The October 10, 2013 Decision in NLRC NCR Case No. 06-08728-13 was penned by Labor Arbiter Beatriz T. De Guzman of the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.
6 Id. at 46.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 46-47.
10 Id. at 47-48.
11 Id. at 47.
12 Id. at 74-80.
13 Id. at 78-79.
14 Id. at 80.
15 Id. at 81-89.
16 Id. at 87-88.
17 Id. at 89.
18 Id. at 91.
19 Id. at 57-73.
20 Id. at 45-53.
21 Id. at 50-51.
22 Id. at 53.
23 Id. at 21-40.
24 Id. at 281.
25 Id. at 283.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 284.
28 Id. at 297-301.
29 Id. at 301-303.
30 Cagatin v. Magsaysay Maritime Corp., 761 Phil. 64, 79 (2015) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
31 Rollo, p. 50.
32 Id. at 133.
33 Id. at 137.
34 Id. at 136.
35 Id. at 51.
36 Id. at 284.
37 256 Phil. 735 (1989) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].
38 Id. at 740-741.
39 LABOR CODE, art. 294.
40 See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].cralawredlibrary