G.R. No. L-9666 January 30, 1957
STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO., petitioner, vs. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Standard-Vacuum Oil Company suspended its warehouseman, Alberto Cobarde, on October 21, 1950, based on a complaint for qualified theft for allegedly stealing five tins of kerosene. After the criminal complaint was dismissed, the company sought authority from the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) to dismiss Cobarde on March 5, 1951, alleging additional irregularities including pilferage, dereliction of duty, and abuse of position for gain. Respondent Katipunan Labor Union, of which Cobarde was an officer, opposed the motion, denying the charges, imputing anti-union motives, and seeking his reinstatement with back pay and overtime compensation. After hearing, the CIR found three charges had some merit but were not sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal. It instead ordered Cobarde suspended for an aggregate period of one year from October 21, 1950, authorized his transfer without demotion in salary, ordered payment of back wages from October 21, 1951, and dismissed his overtime claim. The company’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations committed a grave abuse of discretion in not authorizing Cobarde’s dismissal and instead reducing the penalty to suspension and transfer.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the CIR did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the CIR, in the settlement of labor disputes, is empowered to reduce excessive punishments meted out to erring employees. Examining the three charges, the Court agreed with the CIR’s assessment: (1) The alleged shortage of 70 tins of kerosene was actually the responsibility of the delivery contractor’s drivers, and Cobarde merely had the contractor replace the loss, causing no damage to the company; (2) The loss of 10 tins of kerosene was due to mishandling of ship’s cargo, a minor loss for which Cobarde could be made to pay but which did not justify dismissal; (3) Cobarde’s entering into a stevedoring contract with a company customer violated a company regulation but resulted in no material damage to the company. The Supreme Court also noted the CIR’s finding that Cobarde’s dismissal was sought due to his union activities, as evidenced by the systematic withdrawal of his duties after he became a union officer. Thus, the reduction of the penalty was not a grave abuse of discretion.