Case Digest (G.R. No. 87974)
Facts:
Bristol Laboratories Employees, Association‑DFA and Rico G. Gata v. National Labor Relations Commission et al., G.R. No. 87974, July 02, 1990, Supreme Court First Division, Grino‑Aquino, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the Bristol Laboratories Employees, Association‑DFA and employee Rico G. Gata; respondents include the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Bristol Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. (BLPI), and BLPI officers F.A. Mariazeta, J.F. Fuentes, Jr., and Carlito S. Villanueva. The case is a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus contesting NLRC resolutions that set aside a Labor Arbiter’s decision and remanded the case for further reception of evidence.
Rico G. Gata was employed by BLPI on June 8, 1983 as Territory Manager and received a monthly salary of P4,750.00. In January 1987 he was reassigned to different territories. On March 16, 1987 District Manager F.A. Mariazeta Jr. reported to the company, through Region Sales Manager P.C. Ong, that Gata had allegedly withdrawn stocks without authority from two customers: Farmacia Carillo (Invoice No. 619085 dated August 25, 1986) amounting to P25,603.60 for which Gata issued two personal checks that later bounced, and Dr. Gregorio de Guzman Medical Clinic (Invoice No. 61959 dated September 18, 1986) amounting to P16,527.50 for which Gata issued three personal checks, two of which bounced. Gata later replaced one of the Farmacia Carillo checks by paying two P5,000 installments.
District Manager J.L. Atanacio conducted a separate investigation and on March 20, 1987 submitted a confirming report. BLPI Personnel Manager J.F. Fuentes, Jr. issued a memorandum on March 30, 1987 directing Gata to explain within ten days why he should not be terminated and placed him under preventive suspension. Gata submitted a general denial. A formal personnel investigation was held on April 29, 1987, with Gata represented by counsel and the union president, during which he was confronted with twelve documents evidencing authorized-withdrawal rule violations. BLPI dismissed him for serious misconduct and willful breach of trust.
On August 19, 1987 Gata filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (now Department of Labor) for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, withholding of benefits, and violation of the collective bargaining agreement. After hearings the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated July 28, 1988 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit but ordering BLPI to pay separation pay equivalent to one month per year of service computed at P19,000.
Gata and the union appealed to the NLRC (NCR Case No. 00‑08‑02892‑87). BLPI opposed the appeal and submitted additional documentary evidence for the first time on appeal. On March 7, 1989 the NLRC issued a resolution vacating the Labor Arbiter’s decision and remanding the record to the Labor Arbiter for reception of evidence and further proceedings to ensure due process; its denial of reconsideration on Apri...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion by considering evidence submitted by the employer for the first time on appeal and by entertaining an unverified opposition?
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for reception of further evidence instead of deciding t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)