GR 78491; (March, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 78491 March 16, 1989
STARLITE PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EDGAR GOMEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Starlite Plastic Industrial Corporation dismissed private respondent Edgar Gomez, a factory worker and union member, on June 22, 1984. The company alleged Gomez was caught attempting to steal a ballast worth P80.00. The incident was reportedly witnessed by a security guard and a delivery checker, Bonnie Alvarez. After internal grievance meetings failed, Starlite filed a criminal complaint. The investigating fiscal, however, dismissed the complaint for lack of a prima facie case.
Gomez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint, upholding the dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence due to alleged dishonesty. Gomez appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ordering Gomez’s reinstatement with full backwages. The NLRC found the evidence of theft insufficient to justify dismissal. Starlite then filed this petition, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in finding Gomez’s dismissal illegal due to insufficient proof of the alleged theft.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision, with modifications on the backwages award. The Court held that for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence to be valid, the employer must establish the act justifying the loss of confidence by substantial evidence. The burden of proof rests on the employer. In this case, Starlite failed to meet this burden.
The Court scrutinized the conflicting narratives. Starlite’s version relied on the statements of the security guard and Alvarez. However, the Court noted significant inconsistencies, such as why the witnesses did not immediately apprehend Gomez if he was truly seen in the act. Conversely, Gomez presented a detailed alibi, corroborated by a witness, Rando Tamondong, stating he was elsewhere during the incident. The investigating fiscal’s resolution dismissing the criminal complaint further weakened Starlite’s position. The Court found the NLRC’s assessment—that the evidence for the theft was weak, unreliable, and insufficient to warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal—to be supported by the record. There was no grave abuse of discretion.
Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. The Court modified the NLRC award, ordering Starlite to pay Gomez three years of backwages without deduction and to reinstate him. If reinstatement was no longer feasible, or if Gomez declined, Starlite was ordered to pay separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, computed according to prevailing jurisprudence. The temporary restraining order was lifted.