Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission and Eduardo Pangan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Eduardo Pangan, employed by petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) as a lineman helper and later lineman II, was discovered in early 1977 to have committed pilferage of company properties. An audit report revealed that Pangan's tool accountability record showed he returned worthless materials valued at P2,402.00 to offset previous requisitions. Pangan admitted selling two new leather belts and one handset, all costing P1,609.00, to defray expenses for his goiter operation and medicines. Procedural History: PLDT filed an application for clearance to terminate Pangan's services on May 31, 1977, due to theft and misappropriation of company properties, which was granted by the Department of Labor on September 27, 1977. Pangan subsequently filed a complaint opposing the termination, which was certified for compulsory arbitration. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Pangan's complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, ordering Pangan's reinstatement without backwages, citing mitigating circumstances such as Pangan's past act of bravery during a fire, the low selling price of the items indicating dire need, and the considerable time elapsed since his suspension. The Petition: PLDT filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, assailing the NLRC's decision as a grave abuse of discretion for ordering reinstatement despite Pangan's commission of a serious act of misconduct constituting a just and valid cause for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent Eduardo Pangan despite his commission of theft and misappropriation of company properties. Whether theft of company property constitutes a just and valid cause for dismissal under the Labor Code.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The NLRC decision is SET ASIDE and the temporary restraining order issued by this Court on April 14, 1980, is hereby made PERMANENT.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent Eduardo Pangan despite his commission of theft and misappropriation of company properties: The Supreme Court found that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that theft of company property is a recognized just and valid cause for dismissal under Article 282(a) and (c) of the Labor Code, pertaining to serious misconduct and willful breach of trust. The Court emphasized that while it generally leans towards protecting employees, acts of dishonesty in handling company property are a different matter. The Court cited the case of Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Phils. v. Lariosa, where it set aside an NLRC decision ordering reinstatement without backwages for an employee found with company properties. The Court held that an employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance, as their continuance in service is inimical to the employer's interests. The Court concluded that Pangan was admittedly guilty of violating both the law and company rules, which imposed dismissal as a penalty for the first offense of selling company property without authority. On the issue of whether theft of company property constitutes a just and valid cause for dismissal under the Labor Code: The Supreme Court affirmed that theft of company property is a just and valid cause for dismissal. Article 282 of the Labor Code lists serious misconduct and fraud or willful breach of trust as grounds for termination. The Court explained that the dismissal of a dishonest employee is in the interest of both labor and management, as pilferage endangers the employer's viability and thus the workers' continued employment, promoting labor-management relations based on mutual trust and confidence. The Court stressed that management has the right to protect its interests and cannot be compelled to retain an employee whose actions are detrimental to the company. The Court noted that PLDT's Code of Conduct specifically imposed dismissal for the first offense of selling company property without proper authority.
Main Doctrine
Theft of company property constitutes a just and valid cause for dismissal, and the National Labor Relations Commission commits grave abuse of discretion when it orders reinstatement despite such proven misconduct, as dishonesty in handling company property is inimical to the interests of both labor and management.