Philtread Tire & Rubber Corporation v. Alberto Vicente
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alberto M. Vicente (respondent) was employed by Philtread Tire & Rubber Corporation (petitioner) on February 9, 1978, and at the time of his dismissal, he was a housekeeping coordinator. On February 15, 1991, Crisente Avis, a sign painter with a service contract with petitioner, complained that respondent was forcing him to overprice his service fee by P1,000.00 and to deliver the excess amount to respondent, threatening that future contracts would be withheld if he failed to comply. An investigation was conducted, where Avis declared that respondent instructed him to prepare an invoice for P4,800.00 instead of the agreed P3,800.00, assuring him of petitioner's approval. Respondent was then assigned to janitorial duties, and upon his request for immediate disposition, he failed to submit his evidence within the given period. Petitioner found respondent guilty of extortion, fraud, serious misconduct, and willful breach of trust and confidence, and terminated his services effective March 3, 1991. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against petitioner and Engr. Dumo. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, holding that respondent was illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with full backwages. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA) pursuant to the ruling in St. Martin's Funeral Home vs. NLRC. The CA affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding no cogent reason to reverse it and concluding that the alleged request for overpricing was not supported by documentary evidence, that Avis's complaint to the security department was strange, and that respondent's position as Housekeeping Coordinator could hardly be considered one of trust and confidence. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the CA erred in finding no substantial evidence to support the complaint against respondent and in disregarding Avis's testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner proved by substantial evidence that respondent was guilty of extortion. Whether respondent's dismissal was legal.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed with modification. In lieu of reinstatement, respondent is awarded separation pay equivalent to P114,192.00, plus his full backwages, and other privileges and benefits, or their monetary equivalent, during the period of his dismissal up to his supposed actual reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner proved by substantial evidence that respondent was guilty of extortion: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove its charge by substantial evidence. The Court noted that there was neither direct nor documentary evidence to prove that respondent was involved in extortion. A perusal of the investigation minutes revealed that Crisente Avis did not categorically state that he was pressured by respondent to overprice his service fee. Avis's statements in the minutes were equivocal, expressing uncertainty as to whether respondent was serious when he allegedly told Avis to increase his service fee. The Court reiterated the definition of substantial evidence as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Given the lack of clear and convincing proof, the charge of extortion was not substantiated. On the issue of whether respondent's dismissal was legal: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' conclusion that there was no valid cause for terminating respondent's employment. The Court emphasized the well-established rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, especially when in agreement with the NLRC, are accorded finality and are binding upon the Supreme Court. The CA found no documentary evidence to support the alleged overpricing and questioned the manner in which the complaint was lodged. Furthermore, the CA found that respondent's position as Housekeeping Coordinator did not inherently involve a position of trust and confidence that would be breached by the alleged act. Therefore, the dismissal was deemed illegal.
Main Doctrine
The employer failed to prove by substantial evidence that the employee was guilty of extortion, thus the dismissal was illegal. In lieu of reinstatement due to company closure, the employee is awarded separation pay and full backwages.