Mina v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Jovencio Mina, Ricardo Wangit, Anthony Farnican, Peter Atuban, and Arthur Altatis filed illegal dismissal complaints against Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. The company alleged that on November 20, 1981, between 11:00 p.m. and 11:45 p.m., the petitioners were caught in the act of highgrading ore in the 14 Vein, 23 Position, 1400 Level underground. According to the company's version, mine patrols observed the petitioners breaking and pulverizing highgrade ores, with one petitioner allegedly attempting to bribe the apprehending officers, and the security guard on post claiming he was threatened. The petitioners were investigated, placed under preventive suspension on November 23, 1981, and subsequently dismissed on December 3, 1981, with the company submitting sworn statements, an assay report, and fiscal and municipal court findings as evidence. The petitioners, however, presented a different version, claiming they were ordered out of their working place and denied the allegations of highgrading, alleging the security guards were motivated by a reward and that they were illegally dismissed without just and valid cause, submitting sworn statements, including one from the security guard on post. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioners were illegally dismissed and ordered their reinstatement with full back wages, holiday pay, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Third Division, affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision but limited the award of back wages to three years. Subsequently, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the private respondent. Due to a change in the membership of the Third Division of the NLRC, the newly constituted division rendered a decision dated November 29, 1990, setting aside its previous resolution and declaring the dismissal of the complainants as valid. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, claiming that their motion for reconsideration should have been resolved by the same members of the Third Division who rendered the decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Third Division of the NLRC, as newly constituted, could validly resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by the private respondent. Whether the dismissal of the petitioners from employment was legal.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the NLRC dated November 29, 1990, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the NLRC Third Division to resolve the motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the petitioners' claim is without merit. Under Article 213 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, and Section 2(b), Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the divisions of the Commission have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within their respective territorial jurisdictions. Since the petitioners are from Baguio City, which falls within the Cordillera Administrative Region, the Third Division correctly took cognizance of the appealed case. Consequently, the motion for reconsideration must also be resolved by the same Third Division, regardless of changes in its composition. The law vests the jurisdiction to decide cases appealed to the NLRC in the divisions thereof, not in the individual commissioners. Therefore, it is of no significance who among the commissioners is functioning in the division at any given time, as long as the commissioners voting on the motion for reconsideration were duly assigned to the division. The Court cited Pamintuan v. Llorente and Dayrit to distinguish between a court as an entity and the judge occupying the position. On the legality of the dismissal: The Court found and held that substantial evidence exists to warrant the finding that the petitioners were engaged in highgrading. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that factual findings of labor administrative officials, if supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect and even finality. It is not imperative that all the elements of highgrading or theft of gold be proven to justify the company's loss of trust and confidence in the petitioners. The job of miners, though generally described as menial, requires a substantial amount of trust and confidence. Since there was a reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners committed the crime of highgrading, the respondent company was justified in terminating their services based on loss of trust and confidence.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction to decide cases appealed to the NLRC is vested in the different divisions thereof, not in the individual commissioners assigned to each division. Therefore, a motion for reconsideration may be resolved by a division even if its composition has changed since the rendition of the original decision.