Facts:

The case involves Porfirio Auxilio, Jr. (petitioner) against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Baguio Country Club Corporation, and Lolita Genove (respondents). In 1977, Auxilio was first employed by the Baguio Country Club Corporation and became a regular employee in 1978. By 1981, he transitioned to the position of a front desk clerk, earning a monthly salary of P524.00. On January 17, 1982, the amount of P15,000.00, stored in the cashier's office, was reported missing. The following day, management was notified, and a police investigation determined that the incident was likely an "inside job," suggesting that the thief had access to the cashier's office. Consequently, all employees with such access were questioned, including Auxilio, who denied any involvement.

On January 20, 1982, Auxilio was placed under preventive suspension pending the outcome of the investigation. He underwent a Polygraph examination, yielding inconclusive results where

...

Facts:

Employment and Job Description

• Petitioner Porfirio Auxilio, Jr. was employed by Baguio Country Club Corporation in 1977 as a houseman and regularized in 1978.
• In 1981, he was assigned as a front desk clerk with the following responsibilities:
• Managing hotel room assignments and guest registrations.
• Acting as a switchboard operator.
• Handling administrative tasks related to key management.
• His basic pay was P524.00 per month, reflective of his position and duties.

The Incident of the Missing Money

• On January 17, 1982, P15,000.00 was discovered missing from the cashier’s office at the Country Club.
• The loss was reported to management on January 18, 1982.
• A police investigation by the Baguio City Police Department ruled out forced entry or robbery, suggesting an “inside job.”
• All employees with access to the cashier’s office, including petitioner, were brought in for questioning, and all denied involvement.

Investigations and Polygraph Examination

• Employees, including petitioner, were subjected to Polygraph examinations conducted by the NBI.
• The results revealed that petitioner could not provide a full explanation for his answers regarding the missing money.
• While other employees satisfactorily explained their actions, petitioner displayed erratic behavior and inconsistency.
• Petitioner was subsequently asked to undergo further police investigation; however, he refused by citing illness and later was unreachable as his residence could not be located, with his wife rejecting receipt of notices.

Preventive Suspension and Termination

• On January 20, 1982, petitioner was placed under a preventive suspension for 30 days pending investigation.
• Following his uncooperative behavior and absence from the subsequent investigation, on February 20, 1982, the management terminated his employment for:
• Loss of trust and confidence.
• Giving false statements during the official investigation.

Judicial and Administrative Proceedings

• Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, alleging:
• Dismissal based merely on suspicion without substantive or concrete evidence.
• Denial of due process, particularly by not strictly observing the grievance procedure in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
• Labor Arbiter Saturnino P. Orate, in his decision on October 26, 1984, ordered the reinstatement of petitioner, finding no reasonable grounds for the dismissal.
• On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on February 12, 1988, dismissing petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal.

Evidentiary Basis on Dismissal

• The totality of evidence included:
• Results from the polygraph test indicating deception or inability to explain discrepancies.
• Petitioner’s erratic reactions and subsequent flight, which narrowed the list of suspects.
• Confirmation that other employees, similarly examined, gave satisfactory explanations.
• The management’s actions were based on the initial police reports and the compelling evidence against petitioner, particularly his behavior and failure to cooperate with further investigation.

Issue:

Due Process Allegation

• Whether petitioner was denied due process given his claim that the grievance procedure stipulated in the CBA was not properly observed before his termination.
• Whether proper notice and opportunity to be heard were afforded to petitioner.

Legality of Dismissal

• Whether dismissal on the basis of “loss of trust and confidence” was legally justifiable in view of the evidence gathered.
• Whether the reliance on the polygraph report and petitioner’s subsequent flight provided a sufficient basis for terminating his employment.

Appropriateness of Grievance Machinery Invocation

• Whether or not the grievance procedures mandated by the CBA were applicable to the case at hand, considering the nature of the offense.
• Whether petitioner had an opportunity to initiate the grievance process to contest the allegations before the termination decision was finalized.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)