Comsavings Bank v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents Ricardo S. Portuguez and Osmundo L. Caparas were employed by Royal Savings Bank and retained by petitioner COMSAVINGS BANK after its acquisition. On May 2, 1988, a cash-in-vault (CIV) shortage of P10,000.00 was discovered, stemming from an unposted withdrawal made by Portuguez through Caparas on April 29, 1988. Both were asked to explain. Portuguez claimed it was an overnight transaction. Subsequently, Portuguez was terminated for alleged violations including temporary borrowing from CIV, abuse of overnight transaction privilege, negligence in internal controls, instructing against withholding tax on time deposits, and accepting endorsed checks beyond limits. Caparas was terminated for following Portuguez's instructions regarding the unposted withdrawal, refusing a daily cash count, non-observance of dual control, and incompetence. Procedural History: Portuguez and Caparas filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal with damages. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in their favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages and damages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Third Division, affirmed the decision with modification as to the award of moral damages, reducing them. The NLRC found that the transaction in question could be considered an overnight transaction and noted the lack of hard evidence against the complainants, relying on suspicion and speculation. The NLRC also highlighted commendations received by Portuguez and Caparas for their service. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and Labor Arbiter in ordering the reinstatement of Portuguez and Caparas despite alleged overwhelming evidence of dishonesty. Petitioner argued that Caparas admitted to instructions from Portuguez that were detrimental to the bank and that it was its prerogative to dismiss managerial employees for loss of trust and confidence.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of private respondents. Whether the dismissal of private respondents for loss of trust and confidence was justified.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The NLRC's decision affirming the reinstatement of the private respondents is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to reviewing errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, not the correctness of evidence evaluation. The Court reiterated that it is not its province to re-examine conflicting evidence or substitute its findings for those of an administrative tribunal with expertise in its field. Therefore, the petition, which sought to review factual matters, was dismissed as it was not the proper remedy. On the issue of justification for dismissal: The employer's prerogative to dismiss an employee for loss of confidence requires specific proven facts, not mere suspicion. The petitioner failed to prove that the dismissal of private respondents was due to loss of trust and confidence. The NLRC correctly noted that the Ad Hoc Committee relied on suspicion and speculation, lacking hard evidence. Furthermore, respondent Caparas's affidavit recanting his earlier statements implicating Portuguez was given more credence than the unverified letters. The Court emphasized that the constitutional right to security of tenure must not be rendered nugatory by arbitrary dismissal. The findings of fact of the NLRC, being supported by evidence, are accorded due respect and finality.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is confined to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, and does not include an inquiry into the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. The findings of fact of the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by evidence, are accorded due respect and finality.