Pacaña v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Leoncito Pacaña, a security guard for Philippine Packing Corporation (PPC) for eighteen years, was implicated in the theft of legramoxone chemicals. A minor, Bernie Legaspi, caught stealing the chemicals, stated that Pacaña had asked him to take them. Another security guard, Felizardo Adalin Jr., also provided an affidavit stating he saw Pacaña carrying the chemicals. Pacaña initially admitted guilt, explaining he acted out of pity and was beguiled by the boy's mother, and requested to resign without pay, leading to the dismissal of a qualified theft complaint. 2. Procedural History: The qualified theft complaint was revived when Pacaña's lawyer demanded his reinstatement due to the lapse of his suspension period. Pacaña then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PPC. A labor arbiter ruled in favor of Pacaña, ordering reinstatement with back wages or separation pay. PPC appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC reversed the labor arbiter's decision, finding that Pacaña had been legally dismissed and was not entitled to any awards. Pacaña then filed the present petition. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with Pacaña faulting the NLRC for grave abuse of discretion. Pacaña argues that PPC's appeal to the NLRC was not timely filed. The Court addresses the timeliness of the appeal, noting that while filed on the twelfth calendar day, it was seasonably filed on the earliest possible day due to weekend closures of the NLRC and post office. The Court also upholds the NLRC's finding that Pacaña's dismissal was justified, citing his admissions of guilt and the nature of the offense, which involves integrity essential for a security guard. The Court reiterates its policy that separation pay is not granted for serious misconduct or offenses reflecting on moral character, such as theft.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal filed by Philippine Packing Corporation (PPC) to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was seasonably made. Whether Leoncito Pacaña was illegally dismissed from his employment.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is upheld. Leoncito Pacaña was legally dismissed and is not entitled to reinstatement, back wages, or separation pay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal: The Court held that the appeal filed by PPC was seasonably made. While Article 223 of the Labor Code prescribes a 10-day reglementary period for appeals to the NLRC, which the Court has interpreted as calendar days, PPC filed its appeal on the twelfth calendar day. However, the tenth calendar day fell on a Saturday, and the NLRC offices were closed. The following day was a Sunday. Therefore, the appeal was filed on the earliest possible day, Monday, July 20, 1987, making it timely. The Court reiterated the rule that decisions of the NLRC are reviewable only by certiorari under Rule 65 and may be reversed only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. On the legality of the dismissal: The Court found sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that Pacaña was guilty of stealing legramoxone chemicals. Pacaña himself admitted the offense twice in writing, even providing a reason for his actions. The Court noted that the criminal complaint was withdrawn by PPC only after Pacaña confessed and asked to resign without pay, indicating his acknowledgment of guilt. The revival of the complaint when Pacaña's counsel demanded reinstatement further supported this. Pacaña's claim of intimidation and coercion was unsubstantiated by hard evidence, consisting only of self-serving statements. Given the lack of proof of compulsion, the Court sustained the NLRC's finding of a valid reason for dismissal. The offense involved Pacaña's integrity, a crucial trait for a security guard, and thus warranted his separation from employment. The Court also ruled that Pacaña was not entitled to separation pay, citing the principle that social justice does not extend to employees dismissed for serious misconduct or offenses reflecting on their moral character, such as theft.
Main Doctrine
Decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission are reviewable only by certiorari under Rule 65, and may be reversed only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Theft by an employee constitutes serious misconduct reflecting on moral character, disentitling the employee to separation pay even if validly dismissed, as social justice does not countenance wrongdoing.