GR 54424; (August, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 54424 August 31, 1989
NASIPIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC., petitioner vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER ILDEFONSO G. AGBUYA and JUANITO COLLADO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nasipit Lumber Company (NALCO) employed private respondent Juanito Collado as a security guard. In 1976, lawanit boards were stolen from NALCO’s premises, and Collado was implicated. NALCO placed him under preventive suspension and filed an application for clearance to dismiss him with the Department of Labor. After an ex-parte hearing due to Collado’s non-appearance, the clearance was granted. Collado’s motion for reconsideration led to the case being elevated, and the Acting Secretary of Labor affirmed the dismissal clearance. Subsequently, Collado filed a new complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, despite the prior administrative order.
The Executive Labor Arbiter ordered Collado’s reinstatement without backwages, noting that while NALCO secured the dismissal clearance in good faith, Collado had been dropped from the related criminal complaints for qualified theft. On appeal, the NLRC modified the decision, ordering reinstatement with two years’ backwages. The NLRC rejected NALCO’s defense of res judicata, ruling that the clearance proceeding did not constitute an adjudication on the merits of the legality of the dismissal. NALCO then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the grant of a clearance to dismiss an employee bars a subsequent action questioning the legality of that dismissal on the ground of res judicata.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC and upheld the validity of Collado’s dismissal. The Court clarified that a clearance to dismiss is not a judgment on the merits that can give rise to res judicata. It is a procedural prerequisite, not a definitive ruling on the propriety of the dismissal. Therefore, Collado was not precluded from filing a separate action for illegal dismissal. However, on the substantive merits, the Court found the dismissal valid. Collado, as a security guard, held a position of trust. His implication in the theft, supported by sworn statements, constituted a breach of that trust, which is a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The fact that the criminal charges were later dropped does not bind the labor tribunal, as the standard of proof in administrative cases is merely substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Since the dismissal was for a cause reflecting on his moral character (serious misconduct/breach of trust), reinstatement and the award of separation pay as financial assistance were deemed inappropriate. The dismissal was declared valid.