Facts:

The case at hand involves Levy Agao, Sebastian Ociner, Mario Morante, Rosito Quiling, Pablito Gabarda, and Edmundo Abitan (hereinafter collectively referred to as "petitioners"), who were employed as delivery workers for Cathay Pacific Steel Melting Corporation (CAPASCO). The dismissal of the petitioners stemmed from allegations of theft involving the pilferage of steel bars. On February 10, 1989, a group led by Carlos Elmido attempted to smuggle out twenty steel bars by hiding them with longer bars destined for dispatch. Upon investigation by the police, Columbus Bolabola, a member of Elmido’s group, confessed to his participation in the attempted theft and implicated not only his group but also the Agao and Morante groups for similar offenses.

On March 6, 1989, Bolabola executed affidavits detailing various instances of pilferage involving both the Agao and Morante groups, claiming their involvement in theft occurring on multiple occasions in late 1988 and early 1989

...

Facts:

Parties and Employment Arrangement

• Petitioners:
• Levy Agao
• Sebastian Ociner
• Mario Morante
• Rosito Quiling
• Pablito Gabarda
• Edmundo Abitan
• Respondents:
• Cathay Pacific Steel Melting Corporation (CAPASCO)
• The Honorable Third Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
• Labor Arbiter Joaquin Tanodra
• Nature of Employment:
• Petitioners were delivery workers organized in groups specifically by the employer.
• Each group comprised a driver and two or three helpers, with distinct group compositions (e.g., Elmido’s group, Agao’s group, and Morante’s group).

Discovery of Misconduct and Initial Incidents

• February 10, 1989 Incident:
• A checker discovered an irregularity when Carlos Elmido’s group attempted to remove twenty (20) steel bars by inserting them between longer ones.
• The group was subsequently taken to the police headquarters of Cainta, Rizal, for investigation.
• During the investigation, Columbus Bolabola admitted his involvement and implicated other members of Elmido’s group.
• As a consequence, the Elmido group was not allowed to report for work.
• Subsequent Allegations by Columbus Bolabola:
• On March 6, 1989, Bolabola executed affidavits alleging pilferages involving the groups of Agao, Morante, and Elmido.
• For the Morante group:
• Pilferage incidents were detailed on October 24, October 29, and November 2, 1988.

ii. Specific details were provided including the pilferage of steel bars (with descriptions of sizes, quantities, and methods of concealment and sale), along with the exact monetary shares received (e.g., P150.00 and P200.00). ii. Bolabola testified to witnessing the surreptitious loading of steel bars, his own involvement as a helper, and the subsequent concealment and sale of the items at a junk shop.

Dismissal and NLRC Proceedings

• Dismissals:
• On March 13, 1989, based largely on Bolabola’s affidavits, the groups of Agao and Morante were dismissed from work.
• All petitioners except Bolabola contested the legality of their dismissal.
• Labor Tribunal Proceedings:
• The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on March 21, 1991, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
• Dissatisfied petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC.
• NLRC Decision and Aftermath:
• On August 22, 1991, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by directing CAPASCO to pay each petitioner a sum of P1,000.00 for the non-compliance with the due process requirement, specifically the failure to give prior notice and conduct an investigation.
• On November 18, 1991, the NLRC denied the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration, prompting the petition for certiorari.

Evidence and Testimonies

• Columbus Bolabola’s Testimony:
• Detailed accounts of the pilferage incidents, specifying dates, methods of pilferage, and monetary shares received.
• His account was corroborated by documentary evidence such as CAPASCO’s Weighing Slip Memo No. 0745 dated November 5, 1988.
• Admissions by Petitioner Members:
• A written explanation and subsequent letter from members of the groups (e.g., Agao) acknowledging occurrences of overages and petty thieveries within company operations.
• Additional Documentary Evidence:
• Memoranda and internal records that, although presented by CAPASCO as evidence of due process, were considered self-serving by the court.

Alleged Violations and Due Process Issues

• Petitioners raised two major issues regarding their dismissal:
• Whether the dismissal was effectuated for a just cause.
• Whether they were deprived of their constitutional right to due process (i.e., lack of prior notice and investigation).
• The case record and testimony emphasized the employer’s conduct in relation to the pilferage and the procedural aspects of dismissal.

Issue:

Just Cause for Dismissal

• Was the dismissal of the petitioners based on a just cause as alleged, particularly in relation to the pilferage of steel bars?
• Did the evidence, including testimonies and documentary records, substantiate the employer’s belief in the occurrence of pilferage?

Due Process in Dismissal

• Were the petitioners afforded the constitutional procedural safeguards, namely prior notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard (investigation) before their dismissal?
• Does the evidence indicate that the formalities required by due process were complied with by CAPASCO in the act of dismissal?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)