G.R. No. L-66766 December 20, 1985
ZAMBOANGA CITY WATER DISTRICT, petitioner, vs. GENARO A. BARTOLOME, LABOR ARBITER PASTOR I. ALVAREZ and COMMISSIONERS GUILLERMO C. MEDINA, GABRIEL M. GATCHALIAN and MIGUEL B. VARELA of the National Labor Relations Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Genaro Bartolome was employed as a meter reader by the Zamboanga City Water District. In sworn statements given to the National Bureau of Investigation, Bartolome admitted that in September 1980, he opened the water meter of a customer, Manuela Cahipe, to enable a fellow employee to adjust the meter reading. Another co-employee, Angel Fernando, stated that Bartolome had confided about tampering with water meters in the market area. An initial investigation by the City Fiscal recommended Cahipe’s prosecution and later, upon review, also recommended Bartolome’s prosecution for theft.
Based on these acts, the Water District dismissed Bartolome in June 1981. Bartolome filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages and allowances. The Water District appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but the appeal was dismissed. The NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the dismissal was not substantially supported by evidence, noting the subsequent dismissal of the criminal complaint against Bartolome and the employer’s failure to secure a prior dismissal clearance from the Ministry of Labor.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Bartolome was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The Court held that Bartolome was validly dismissed for gross misconduct, a just cause under the Labor Code. His sworn admission of opening a water meter for unauthorized adjustment constitutes a serious breach of trust and duty, warranting termination. The legal logic is clear: an employer’s right to dismiss an employee for cause is not dependent on the outcome of a criminal prosecution.
The dismissal of the theft case by the fiscal does not bar the employer from terminating employment based on the same acts, as the standards of proof and the interests involved in labor cases differ from criminal proceedings. The requirement for a prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor, while noted in the dissenting opinion, was superseded by the Court’s finding of a valid cause for dismissal. The Labor Arbiter’s order for reinstatement, despite clear evidence of misconduct admitted by the employee himself, constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The NLRC similarly erred in dismissing the employer’s appeal. Consequently, Bartolome’s complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed.