Flores v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romeo P. Flores was employed by Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) from May 16, 1967, until his dismissal on July 18, 1988, where he held the position of teller, having previously been a lineman. In October 1987, it was discovered that petitioner and his neighbor were using electric meters different from those officially issued. An inspection revealed the illegal installation of Meter No. 33SLN74263 at petitioner's premises, while Meter No. 33SGN30400 was officially issued. Petitioner was found to be using a two-line-jumper to defraud MERALCO by substituting the official meter to avoid reflecting actual consumption. Further investigation indicated petitioner had taken Meter No. 33SLN74263 from a demolished house without MERALCO's consent. The illegal meters were removed, tested, and found to be tampered. On December 14, 1987, MERALCO sent a Violation of Contract (VOC) letter charging petitioner P2,060.59, which was paid on December 23, 1987, with a discount. Petitioner was summoned for a formal administrative investigation on February 12, 1988, which was postponed at his request. On February 26, 1988, assisted by counsel, petitioner gave a sworn statement unqualifiedly admitting the charges and appealing for leniency. Procedural History: On March 7, 1988, MERALCO's Special Presidential Committee found petitioner guilty of violating company codes on tampering with electric meters and unauthorized taking of company property, recommending dismissal. Petitioner was dismissed on July 18, 1988. On September 8, 1988, petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on October 31, 1989, finding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed as the dismissal was for cause, citing his implied admission of responsibility and the resulting fraud, and finding insufficient evidence to determine discrimination. On November 24, 1989, petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which dismissed the appeal on September 11, 1989. A Motion for Reconsideration was denied on December 17, 1990. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in dismissing him for loss of trust and confidence. He argued that dismissal was too harsh for a first offense in 21 years of service, especially considering he had paid the differential billings.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed. Whether the penalty of dismissal was too harsh considering his length of service and payment of differential billings, and whether petitioner is entitled to separation pay.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The assailed resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether petitioner was illegally dismissed: The Court affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. Petitioner's sworn statement, given with the assistance of counsel, contained an unqualified admission of the charges imputed against him. This admission, coupled with documentary evidence, constituted gross misconduct and a clear breach of the trust reposed in him by MERALCO. The substitution of the official electric meter with an illegal one to defraud the company, and the unauthorized taking of company property (the meter), are serious offenses that justify dismissal. MERALCO cannot be compelled to retain an employee found guilty of such malfeasance, as his continued employment would be prejudicial to the company's best interests. The act of dishonesty is a valid ground for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code, which allows dismissal for serious misconduct or willful breach of trust. On whether the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and entitlement to separation pay: The Court held that the penalty of dismissal was justified and that petitioner was not entitled to separation pay. While petitioner had 21 years of service, this fact was considered against him, reflecting a regrettable lack of loyalty rather than a mitigating circumstance. The Court reiterated the principle that social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing. Applying the ruling in PLDT vs. NLRC, separation pay as a measure of social justice is allowed only when an employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or offenses reflecting on moral character. Since petitioner's dismissal was for gross misconduct and breach of trust, he is not entitled to separation pay. The Court emphasized that social justice should not be a refuge for those who have committed offenses and betrayed the trust reposed in them.
Main Doctrine
An employee dismissed for serious misconduct or willful breach of trust, such as tampering with electric meters and defrauding the employer, is not entitled to separation pay, even with long years of service, as social justice does not countenance wrongdoing.