Quinones v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, security guards of Superstar Security Agency, Inc. (SSAI), were assigned to the Duty Free Shop at the FTI compound. They were placed on temporary off-detail status after being charged with drinking liquor within company premises. Subsequently, SSAI terminated their services via a letter dated January 3, 1989, citing "serious misconduct in engaging in a drinking spree at company premises in FTI detachment on 2 November 1988 that resulted in the stabbing of one cc-guard participant." Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, finding the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full back wages. The Labor Arbiter noted that the drinking spree occurred at a nearby sari-sari store after petitioners were invited to a co-guard's birthday party, and all guards involved were off-duty. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision, giving credence to the sworn statements of four other participants and the testimony of Pablito Pornasdoro, who identified petitioners as having drunk liquor within company premises. The NLRC concluded that the infraction was punishable by dismissal. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, averring that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's findings, disregarding their testimonies, and imposing dismissal as the proper sanction.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in setting aside the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and disregarding the testimonies of the petitioners. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that dismissal was the proper sanction for the offense committed. What is the proper remedy for the illegally dismissed employees.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is SET ASIDE, and a new judgment is entered ordering the reinstatement of petitioners with back wages from the end of their 30-day suspension up to three years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the NLRC's evaluation of evidence and disregard of testimonies: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's evaluation of the evidence. The Court held that denials are weak defenses, especially when unsubstantiated. In this case, four other participants positively identified petitioners as having drunk liquor on company premises. Furthermore, petitioner Quinones admitted entering the company premises to wait for co-guards after drinking at a sari-sari store, and petitioner Ibarrientos made a similar admission. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the NLRC are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence, citing Capitol Industrial Construction Groups v. National Labor Relations Commission. On the propriety of the penalty of dismissal: The Court agreed with the petitioners that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in imposing the penalty of dismissal. The "Employees'/Guards' Rules and Regulations Manual for Superstar Security Agency, Inc." clearly states that the offense of drinking alcoholic beverages within company premises is punishable by suspension of one to 30 working days for the first offense, depending on gravity and extenuating circumstances, and dismissal for the second offense. Since the petitioners' offense was their first, the penalty of suspension, not dismissal, should have been imposed, citing Catalan v. Genilo, Foodmine, Incorporated (Kentucky Fried Chicken) v. National Labor Relations Commission, Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, and Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission. The Court determined that a suspension of 30 days was the commensurate penalty, noting that the drinking session degenerated into a brawl resulting in a stabbing, which warranted sanctioning the guards who breached the peace they were tasked to maintain. On reinstatement and back wages: The Court held that petitioners are entitled to reinstatement with back wages from the end of their 30-day suspension up to three years, as provided by R.A. No. 6715 amending Article 279 of the Labor Code, citing Visperas v. Inciong and Maranaw Hotels and Resorts Corp. v. Court of Appeals. The 30-day suspension was to be reckoned from January 3, 1989, not from the commencement of their off-detail status, as off-detail is not equivalent to dismissal, citing Superstar Security Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.
Main Doctrine
While the NLRC may set aside the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, its imposition of the penalty of dismissal for a first offense of drinking liquor on company premises, when the agency's rules prescribe suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The appropriate penalty for a first offense, considering the attendant circumstances, should be suspension.