G.R. No. 119536 - Dela Cruz vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Gloria S. De la Cruz was hired by the respondent company in 1975 as a laboratory aide.
She was assigned to the Production Department where she handled tasks such as printing product codes, labels, and foils.

On June 11, 1992, a company meeting was held wherein management announced the temporary suspension of vacation leaves.
Sick leaves were allowed only under the condition that the sickness or injury occurred within the company premises due to a heavy volume of work.

Despite the above directive, petitioner availed herself of sick leave from June 16 to 30, 1992.
When she reported for work on July 1, 1992, the company guard barred her entry and issued a memorandum informing her of a temporary lay-off from July 1 to 15, 1992, allegedly due to continuous daily brownouts.

On July 16, 1992, as petitioner was preparing to leave, her immediate supervisor confronted her regarding a bag marked “aPlivaa”.
Petitioner explained that she had retrieved the bag from a garbage can, using it over the previous two months as a container for her umbrella and/or company uniform.
The bag in question was uniquely associated with packaging products for a foreign client and was not the one requested from her co-employee.

A memorandum dated July 17, 1992, from the company’s personnel officer directed petitioner to justify why she should not face penalty for unauthorized possession of company property, equipment, and supplies.
After an administrative investigation—during which petitioner was placed under preventive suspension—the company terminated her services for allegedly violating the Company Code of Discipline on grounds of dishonesty.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal temporary lay-off, illegal dismissal with damages, and attorney’s fees (NLRC-NCR Case No. 09-04790-92).
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the lay-off was justified under a cost-saving program and that petitioner’s unauthorized possession (or alleged dishonesty) was a valid cause for dismissal.
On appeal, the NLRC (Third Division) affirmed the LD’s ruling but re-characterized the offense as unauthorized possession rather than dishonesty, and directed that financial assistance be extended to petitioner due to her 17 years of service.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

Petitioner contended that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the temporary lay-off despite several contradicting facts, including:

The rushed and irregular suspension of leave benefits prior to the lay-off.
The absence of tangible evidence supporting the existence of a cost-saving program beyond a single discredited witness testimony.
The fact that petitioner was the only employee laid off while others continued working, even those whose work depended on hers.

Petitioner also argued that the characterization of the aPlivaa bag incident was flawed, citing that it was retrieved from a garbage can and thus should be considered res nullius (ownerless property).

The Solicitor General criticized the company’s alleged cost-saving program as a mere camouflage intended to rid petitioner of her employment.
It was noted that only petitioner was affected, despite the existence of over 100 employees, and changes in work schedule indicated an alternative to lay-offs.
The private respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the lay-off was inevitable due to economic realities and that petitioner’s unauthorized possession of the bag, available evidence notwithstanding, justified her dismissal.

Whether the temporary lay-off pursuant to a purported cost-saving program was a bona fide exercise of management prerogative or merely a subterfuge aimed at dismissing petitioner.

Whether the dismissal of petitioner on grounds of unauthorized possession of company property (with implications of dishonesty) met the standard of just and valid cause under labor law.

Whether the evidence presented by the private respondents was sufficient to establish willful breach of trust and, consequently, justify dismissal.

Whether the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC manifested a grave abuse of discretion by disregarding both the factual evidence and established labor law principles regarding termination.