Lacorte v. Inciong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Salvador Lacorte, an employee of Asean Fabricators, Inc., was accused of attempting to steal company property by offering to purchase obsolete junk materials, which upon inspection, were found to be new and usable. A criminal complaint for qualified theft was filed against him but was dismissed by the Provincial Fiscal for insufficiency of evidence. Subsequently, Asean Fabricators, Inc. filed an application for clearance to terminate petitioner's employment. Procedural History: Respondent Labor Regional Director Francisco Estrella granted the application for clearance to terminate petitioner's employment, finding that petitioner, by his acts, breached the trust and confidence reposed in him as a warehouseman, despite the dismissal of the criminal complaint. Respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Amado Gat Inciong affirmed this order on appeal. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to annul the orders of the labor officials, alleging grave abuse of discretion and violation of his right to due process, and praying for his reinstatement with backwages.
Issue(s)
Whether the public respondents acted arbitrarily and/or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the application for clearance to terminate the employment of petitioner. Whether petitioner was denied due process in the proceedings before the labor officials. Whether the dismissal of the criminal complaint for qualified theft by the fiscal should have compelled the labor officials to deny the application for clearance; and the alleged lack of weighing and examination of materials.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The orders granting the application for clearance to terminate the employment of petitioner are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process: The Court found that petitioner was accorded ample opportunities to present his case. He filed a position paper and participated in hearings. The affidavits claiming his termination was due to union activities were filed late, after the case was submitted for decision on appeal, and were considered self-serving and a mere afterthought. The Court held that petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of respondent labor officials' functions. The findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded respect and even finality. Petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to support his claim of union-related termination. On the effect of the dismissal of the criminal complaint for qualified theft: The Court held that the dismissal of the criminal complaint by the fiscal does not bind the labor tribunal. The purpose of the fiscal's proceeding is to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while labor cases require only substantial evidence. The evidence presented before the fiscal and the labor tribunal may differ, and the appreciation of facts is within the discretion of administrative officials. The conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable for his dismissal, and the dropping of a criminal complaint is not conclusive upon a labor tribunal. On the issue of the dismissal of the criminal complaint for qualified theft and the alleged lack of weighing and examination of materials: The Court was not persuaded by the argument that the delay in filing the application for clearance negated the claim of loss of confidence. Respondents intimated that the company conducted its investigation before filing charges and the clearance application, and only after being convinced of the veracity of the reported attempt to steal. Allowing the petitioner to continue his job pending investigation was considered proper and in accord with fair process. The time taken for investigation was understandable given other corporate preoccupations. The Court found it too late in the day for petitioner to raise these factual matters in the petition, and his evidence did not substantiate his claim. The Court concluded that there was substantial basis for the orders issued by the respondent labor officials.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a criminal complaint for qualified theft by the fiscal does not preclude a labor tribunal from granting clearance to terminate employment based on loss of trust and confidence, as the quantum of proof required in criminal cases (beyond reasonable doubt) differs from that in labor cases (substantial evidence), and the appreciation of facts is within the administrative officials' discretion.