Naguit, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Aniceto W. Naguit, Jr., an employee of Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) for 32 years, was dismissed on June 13, 1991. The dismissal stemmed from allegations that he falsified his timesheet to claim overtime pay for June 6, 1987, and induced another employee, Fidel Cabuhat, to prepare a petty cash voucher for alleged jeep rental and meal allowance, which was not actually incurred for field verification purposes. MERALCO's investigation found Naguit guilty of falsifying time cards and encouraging another employee to violate company policy. Procedural History: Following his dismissal, Naguit filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Naguit, ordering his reinstatement with backwages and attorney's fees. MERALCO appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, by Decision of November 28, 1994, reversed the Labor Arbiter's ruling and dismissed Naguit's complaint. Naguit then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Aniceto W. Naguit, Jr. seeks, via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, to annul the NLRC's decision and resolution. He argues that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by drawing conclusions contrary to law and jurisprudence. Specifically, he contends that his position as Administrative Officer did not exclude him from policies pertaining to field personnel when performing field assignments, and that the NLRC erred in finding him guilty of dishonesty. He also argues that the affidavits used against him were hearsay as the affiants were not presented for cross-examination.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's dismissal for falsification of time cards was valid; and Whether the petitioner's dismissal for dishonesty and breach of trust was valid, and whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its findings and conclusions regarding the penalty of dismissal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the NLRC's decision and resolution. It ordered respondent MERALCO to pay petitioner Aniceto W. Naguit, Jr. his retirement benefits, computed from the inception of his service up to the time he reached 60 years of age, in accordance with its retirement plan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of falsification of time cards: The Court found that the petitioner had informed his supervisor, Ortega, about his plan to leave early to attend a wedding after rendering overtime work. The supervisor's testimony indicated a company policy allowing for discretion in accounting for hours worked in field assignments, where personnel forego office conveniences and are exposed to rigors. The Court noted that the supervisor approved the overtime pay and had the discretion to "judge the number of hours that can be foregone." Given that the limit of this discretion was not clearly disseminated and the qualifying factor was satisfactory work completion, the Court did not attribute malice to the petitioner. The Court also reasoned that if the petitioner intended to defraud the company, he would not have erased the entry for June 7 and could have collected more. Therefore, the charge of falsification did not lie. On the charge of dishonesty and breach of trust, and the penalty of dismissal: The Court acknowledged that while the affidavits of Cabuhat were hearsay and inadmissible due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination, the petitioner's own sworn statements during the MERALCO investigation established his culpability. In these statements, petitioner admitted to releasing petty cash to Cabuhat for a hired jeep and meal allowance, despite knowing that Cabuhat did not hire a jeep that day and did not conduct field verification because he was with the petitioner in Pagbilao, Quezon. Petitioner attributed this to oversight due to a heavy workload and the fact that the voucher already bore the signatures of the approving officers. The Court found that as the custodian of the petty cash fund, petitioner had a duty to ascertain the veracity of claims, and he could not shirk this responsibility by blaming the approving officers or claiming mere inadvertence, especially given his admission of knowledge regarding the non-performance of the work. Despite finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and breach of trust, the Court considered his 32 years of service with no prior derogatory record. The Court deemed dismissal too severe a penalty in this context. It noted that petitioner was below retirement age at the time of dismissal but had since reached it, rendering reinstatement moot. The Court concluded that a denial of backwages from the time of dismissal up to his retirement age would suffice as punishment for his dishonesty. However, he should not be deprived of his retirement benefits.
Main Doctrine
While an employee's dishonesty and breach of trust may warrant dismissal, the penalty of dismissal may be considered too severe for an employee with a long tenure and no prior derogatory record. In such cases, denial of backwages up to retirement age may suffice as punishment, while preserving retirement benefits.