Facts:

The case involves Capitol Wireless, Inc. (Capwire) as the petitioner and Carlos Antonio Balagot as the respondent. Balagot was hired by Capwire as a collector on September 16, 1987. His job required him to work outside the office, and as such, Capwire provided him with a motorcycle for service, covering expenses for gasoline and maintenance. On May 9, 2000, at approximately 3:35 p.m., the director of Capwire's Human Resource Department (HRD) unexpectedly spotted Balagot at the Head Office of China Banking Corporation (China Bank), a company with which Capwire had no business dealings. It was later discovered that Balagot had been concurrently employed with Contractual Concepts, Inc. (CCI) since 1992, where he was assigned to provide messengerial services to China Bank. Following this revelation, the HRD director recommended Balagot's immediate termination for grave misconduct and willful breach of trust. On May 10, 2000, Capwire issued a memorandum to Balagot, asking ...

Facts:

Employment Background

• Capitol Wireless, Inc. (Capwire) employed Carlos Antonio Balagot as a collector on September 16, 1987.
• As part of his duties—including work outside the office—Balagot was provided with a motorcycle and had his gasoline and maintenance expenses shouldered by Capwire.

Discovery of Dual Employment

• On May 9, 2000, at approximately 3:35 p.m., the Human Resource Department (HRD) director observed Balagot at the Head Office of China Banking Corporation (China Bank) at Paseo de Roxas, Makati—a bank with which Capwire had no established business engagement.
• Further investigation revealed that Balagot had been concurrently employed since 1992 by Contractual Concepts, Inc. (CCI), a local manpower agency that had assigned him, in the same year, to render messengerial services to China Bank.

Administrative Proceedings and Admission

• On May 10, 2000, the HRD issued a memorandum to Balagot alleging grave misconduct and willful breach of trust, requesting an explanation within 24 hours for his simultaneous employment.
• Balagot admitted the charge through an undated handwritten reply.
• An administrative hearing was conducted on May 18, 2000, during which Capwire introduced key evidence:
• A certification from CCI, signed by its president and general manager, confirming Balagot’s assignment to China Bank since December 8, 1992.
• A cash voucher indicating a loan of P2,000 in favor of Balagot from CCI.
• A payslip covering the period April 1–15, 2000.

Dismissal and Subsequent Legal Actions

• On May 22, 2000, Capwire dismissed Balagot for grave misconduct due to lost trust and confidence stemming from his unauthorized employment during company time.
• Balagot filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on August 4, 2000.
• The Labor Arbiter, in a March 7, 2001 decision, sided with Balagot; finding that dual employment per se was not a just cause for dismissal unless it interfered with job performance and company interest. The decision ordered Capwire (and its president, Epifanio Marquez) to reinstate Balagot without loss of seniority and to pay backwages and appropriate monetary awards.
• The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision by holding that Balagot’s concurrent employment, which overlapped with his official work hours (8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.) and the fact that China Bank’s operational hours (closing at 3:00 P.M.) made it practically impossible for him to perform without impacting his primary job. The NLRC characterized his conduct as "moonlighting" and an unauthorized use of company time and resources.
• The Court of Appeals, on May 31, 2005, reversed the NLRC decision, thereby reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s favorable ruling for Balagot but absolving Capwire president Marquez of solidary liability.
• Capwire then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision on the ground that the evidence ultimately demonstrated Balagot’s misconduct and that his dismissal was justified.

Issue:

Whether Balagot’s engagement in dual employment constituted grave misconduct justifying his dismissal by Capwire.

• Did Balagot’s concurrent employment with Contractual Concepts, Inc. interfere with his primary duties as a collector for Capwire?
• Was there clear and preponderant evidence that Balagot used Capwire’s company time and resources to serve another employer?

Whether the evidence presented by Capwire, including the HRD’s observation and documentary proofs from CCI, sufficiently established a prima facie case of unauthorized use of company time.

• Were the banking operating hours and the nature of the services performed by Balagot leveraged as evidence to undermine his claim that his secondary job was exclusively after office hours?

• Whether the legal procedures and the shift of the burden of evidence in cases of alleged misuse of company time were properly applied by the lower tribunals.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)