Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 19, 1993, Marcelito Pescante (private respondent) and Edgar Vicente, employees of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), were assigned to handle flight PR 841. Pescante was the load controller, and Vicente was the check-in clerk. A passenger, Myla Cominero, checked in with seven pieces of baggage exceeding 100 kgs. Vicente allegedly colluded with Cominero, reflecting a lighter weight on her ticket to avoid excess baggage charges. Sgt. Jose Tompong, a police officer, was involved in receiving P1,000.00 from Cominero, purportedly for excess baggage, which was later handed to Vicente. Cominero failed to show up during boarding, leading to preparations to off-load her baggage. It was discovered that her ticket was pooled with three companions who denied knowing her. Cominero eventually arrived and claimed she paid P1,000.00 for excess baggage without a receipt. Vicente later paid P983.50 for excess baggage, after which Cominero paid an additional P672.95 upon arrival in Cebu. Vicente's report implicated Pescante, stating Pescante suggested calling a contact in Cebu to intercept the passenger and later handed Vicente P1,000.00 to be issued as an Excess Baggage Receipt. Alfredo Pelayo, a CSA, also submitted an explanation detailing Pescante's alleged attempts to convince him to check-in Cominero's ticket and Pescante's subsequent call to Vicente. Procedural History: PAL filed an administrative case against Pescante and Vicente for fraud against the company. Both were found guilty and dismissed. Pescante's appeal to the Grievance Committee was denied. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter, who dismissed the complaint, finding Pescante's dismissal valid and for just cause, but awarded P5,000.00 as financial assistance on equitable grounds. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter's decision, finding that the defrauding was not Pescante's handiwork and that PAL failed to show revenue losses. PAL's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: PAL filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the NLRC's decision and resolution, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the labor arbiter's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC's finding that the defrauding of excess baggage revenue was not the handiwork of the complainant is supported by evidence. Whether the NLRC was legally justified in disregarding the statements of Ed Vicente and Alfredo Pelayo. Whether material damage is necessary for the validity and legality of dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence. Whether the NLRC was justified in ordering the reinstatement of the private respondent with full backwages.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the NLRC is SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED with the modification that the award of P5,000.00 financial assistance is deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the NLRC's finding that the defrauding of excess baggage revenue was not the handiwork of the complainant is supported by evidence: The Supreme Court found that the NLRC gravely erred in discrediting the statements of Ed Vicente and Alfredo Pelayo. The Court held that Vicente's declaration should be weighed alongside other testimonies, and Pelayo's statement should not be considered biased without proof of ill motive. The testimonies of persons without motive to depose falsely against an employee must be given credence. The Court found substantial evidence showing Pescante's direct involvement, including urging Pelayo to check-in Cominero, retrieving money from Sgt. Tompong, handing money to Vicente, instructing Vicente to call a contact in Cebu, and failing to report the matter to supervisors. The Court noted Pescante's failure to refute Vicente's testimony during a clarificatory hearing. On Whether the NLRC was legally justified in disregarding and giving no probative value to the statements of Ed Vicente and Alfredo Pelayo: The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC gravely erred in discrediting Vicente's statement simply because he appeared to be the culprit. His statement, along with Pelayo's, was replete with essential details that interlocked with other witnesses' declarations, such as Sgt. Tompong and Loreto Condez. The Court emphasized that Pelayo's statement should not be considered biased without proof of ill motive, and Pescante provided none. The testimonies of these witnesses, not shown to be motivated by ill will, were given due credence. On Whether material damage is necessary for the validity and legality of dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence: The Court held that actual defraudation is not necessary for an employee to be held liable under the company's Code of Discipline for fraud against the company. Pescante's attempt to deprive PAL of its lawful revenue was already tantamount to fraud, warranting dismissal. The fact that PAL failed to show it suffered losses in revenue was immaterial. On Whether the NLRC was justified in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent with full backwages: Since the dismissal was found to be for just and valid cause (fraud against the company), the NLRC's order for reinstatement with full backwages had no factual and legal basis. The Court reiterated that monetary awards like financial assistance are justified only when dismissal is for causes other than serious misconduct or offenses adversely affecting moral character, such as theft, fraud, or falsification.
Main Doctrine
An employee's attempt to defraud the company of its lawful revenue, even if actual defraudation did not occur, constitutes fraud against the company and warrants dismissal from service. The fact that the company did not suffer monetary losses is immaterial.