San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Serafin Saquing, a route salesman for San Miguel Corporation, was accused of attempting to defraud a customer, Dolores Santos, by concealing six cases of filled beer bottles within a pile of empty cases. This incident allegedly occurred on August 6, 1981, when Saquing and his assistants were collecting empty bottles from Santos' store. San Miguel Corporation subsequently terminated Saquing's employment based on loss of trust and confidence, citing this incident and prior instances of alleged misconduct, including a previous demotion for overcharging and a suspension for theft. 2. Procedural History: Following his dismissal, Serafin Saquing filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, illegal demotion, and illegal suspension. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Saquing, ordering his reinstatement with backwages and attorney's fees, finding that the employer had not sufficiently substantiated the grounds for dismissal. The NLRC affirmed this decision on appeal. San Miguel Corporation then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: San Miguel Corporation petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and grossly misappreciated the facts by affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision. The petitioner contended that the evidence presented was sufficient to justify Saquing's dismissal. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and, upon review, found merit in the petition, concluding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The Court found the corroborated testimonies of Saquing's assistants more credible than a subsequent affidavit by Dolores Santos, which appeared to retract her initial accusation. The Court also considered Saquing's prior disciplinary record as further grounds for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering the reinstatement of private respondent. Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner was sufficient to justify the dismissal of private respondent on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated December 28, 1984, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated September 16, 1983, are reversed and set aside. The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering the reinstatement of private respondent: The Supreme Court found that the public respondent NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the Labor Arbiter. The Court was convinced that clear malfeasance was committed by the private respondent, warranting his dismissal. The corroboration of the testimonies of his two assistants, Salvador Bucaling, Jr. and Alexander Suyo, revealed the malicious intentions of the private respondent. The Court expressed reservations on the second affidavit executed by Mrs. Dolores Santos, which retracted her previous sworn statement. The explanation in the second affidavit, that the cases were piled up and scooped out without verification, contradicted the detailed testimonies of Bucaling and Suyo who arranged the empties and piled them. Furthermore, the late introduction of a saleslady in the second affidavit was considered an afterthought and a mere cover-up story. On the issue of whether the evidence presented by the petitioner was sufficient to justify the dismissal of private respondent on the ground of loss of trust and confidence: The Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient. The Court noted that aside from the incident on August 6, 1981, the petitioner had other grounds to lose trust and confidence in the private respondent. These included a previous suspension for 30 days in September 1980 for stealing four cases of beer from Ancheta's store and a demotion in February 1980 for overcharging a customer. The private respondent did not deny these imputations. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that an employer has the right to dismiss an employee whose continuance in the service is inimical to the employer's interest, especially when charges of theft and misconduct are supported by evidence. The private respondent, as a sales agent representing the petitioner, must maintain the highest degree of trust and confidence.
Main Doctrine
An employer has the right to dismiss an employee whose continuance in the service is inimical to the employer's interest, especially when charges of theft and misconduct are supported by evidence. A retraction of a sworn statement, particularly when it appears to be an afterthought or cover-up, may be disregarded by the Court.