G.R. No. 212616 - Distribution and Control Products, Inc. vs. Santos

Petitioners: Distribution & Control Products, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in selling and distributing electrical products and equipment, with Vincent M. Tiamsic as its president.
Respondent: Jeffrey E. Santos, employed as the company driver for petitioners since April 5, 2005.

On December 16, 2010, respondent received a notice placing him under preventive suspension for thirty (30) days starting December 17, 2010.
The suspension was due to suspicion of participation in the unlawful taking of circuit breakers and electrical products from the company.
A criminal complaint for qualified theft was filed against respondent and others with the Prosecutor's Office of Mandaluyong City.
Respondent inquired from the company's Human Resources Department about the suspension but did not receive a concrete explanation or opportunity to explain his side before suspension.

On February 19, 2010, petitioners, through hired auditors, conducted a physical stock inventory revealing missing electrical products valued at approximately P457,394.35.
A subsequent inventory on April 24, 2010, indicated additional missing items including a circuit breaker worth P106,341.75 and 37 pieces of 40-ampere circuit breakers worth P39,940.04.
Only respondent and the company warehouseman had access to the warehouse where materials were stored.
Petitioners demanded explanations from respondent and the warehouseman, but they failed to account for the missing items.
Following the investigation, petitioners filed a criminal complaint and suspended respondent. After the suspension, respondent was no longer allowed to return to work.

On July 25, 2011, respondent filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and payment of separation pay.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) found respondent illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with full backwages amounting to P297,916.67 on January 30, 2012.
Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on May 16, 2012, affirmed with modification the LA's decision, ordering payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied on June 25, 2012.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the NLRC decisions on November 22, 2013, and denied reconsideration on May 20, 2014.
Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA rulings.

Whether the Court of Appeals intruded into the employer's right to dismiss an employee whose continued employment was inimical to the employer’s interest.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deciding the case contrary to Supreme Court precedents that when an employee is dismissed for valid grounds but without complying with the two-notice rule, only nominal damages should be awarded.