University of the East v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Rizal Jose, a Dental Laboratory Helper at petitioner University of the East, was dismissed for serious misconduct. The facts admitted by Jose were that on March 7, 1983, student Juliet Yu lost her "foot control." Jose denied knowledge of its whereabouts. However, on March 9, 1983, Jose sold a "foot control" to another student, Lael Ignacio, for P300.00. Ignacio recognized it as Yu's lost item and reported the matter to the Vice-Dean. When confronted, Jose admitted taking the foot control due to financial problems. He was asked to explain in writing why he should not be dismissed for stealing but failed to do so, instead admitting the theft again and asking for a second chance. Considering the prevalence of theft incidents, the Dean recommended dismissal, and Jose was dismissed on March 16, 1983. Procedural History: Jose filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found Jose guilty of serious misconduct and intent to gain but ordered reinstatement without backwages, considering his length of service and willingness to make amends. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, noting that the foot control was returned and no pecuniary damage was suffered, but warned Jose of his conduct. The Petition: Petitioner University of the East filed a certiorari proceeding seeking to set aside the NLRC Resolution, arguing grave abuse of discretion for ordering reinstatement despite proof of serious misconduct and breach of trust.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of private respondent Rizal Jose for theft and serious misconduct was valid, considering his actions constituted serious misconduct and breach of trust. Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering reinstatement despite the proven misconduct and breach of trust, and whether reinstatement is proper in light of the loss of trust and confidence.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter and Resolution of the NLRC are annulled and set aside. The dismissal of private respondent Rizal Jose on March 16, 1983, is declared valid and binding.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of dismissal for theft and serious misconduct: The Court affirmed that theft committed by an employee constitutes a valid reason for dismissal under Article 283(b) and (d) of the Labor Code, which allows termination for serious misconduct and fraud or willful breach of trust. The Court found that private respondent Rizal Jose committed serious misconduct by stealing the "foot control," denying knowledge of it, and subsequently selling it. This act clearly breached the trust and confidence reposed in him by the petitioner. The arguments that no pecuniary damage was suffered because the item was returned or that Jose expressed willingness to make amends do not mitigate his liability nor obliterate the loss of trust and confidence. Furthermore, the records showed a prior suspension in 1980 for playing cards during office hours and dereliction of duty, with a final warning against future offenses. This prior disciplinary action underscored the petitioner's right to lose confidence. On the propriety of reinstatement: The Court held that reinstatement is not proper where the termination of employment is due to a breach of trust and confidence. Ordering reinstatement under such circumstances would constitute oppression against the employer. The Court cited jurisprudence, including Philippine Geothermal Inc. vs. NLRC and SMC vs. NLRC, which established that even an employee exonerated from a criminal charge may still be dismissed if the employer has ample reason to mistrust him, and that reinstatement is improper in cases of breach of trust. The principle that "the law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer" was invoked, emphasizing that the NLRC's decision to reinstate Jose despite his proven dishonesty and breach of trust was a grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
Theft committed by an employee, coupled with dishonesty and breach of trust, constitutes serious misconduct and a valid ground for dismissal, and reinstatement is not proper where termination is due to loss of trust and confidence, as such would amount to oppression of the employer.