G.R. No. 163431 - Dongon vs. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc.

The petitioner, Nathaniel N. Dongon, was employed by Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc. in the hauling and trucking business.
He served as a truck helper/leadman and was primarily assigned at the Tanduay Otis Warehouse, where his duties involved facilitating the loading and unloading of trucks.

On April 23, 2001, during a delivery operation, an incident occurred at Tanduay when the security guard noted that driver Vicente Villaruz was not wearing an Identification Card (I.D. Card).
In response, petitioner assured the guard that he would secure special permission from management. Instead, he lent his company I.D. Card to Villaruz, which led to a clearance being issued by Tanduay on the basis of a misrepresentation.
The guard observed the misrepresentation and subsequently reported the incident to Tanduay’s management.

An administrative investigation was conducted, and on May 23, 2001, petitioner was dismissed from his employment on the ground of dishonesty and violation of company rules.
Petitioner filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal on June 1, 2001.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, holding that petitioner’s act of lending his I.D. Card constituted mental dishonesty, breached trust, and jeopardized the company’s relationship with its client Tanduay, thus justifying the dismissal.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, finding that rapid management had failed to prove its case and that no pecuniary damage was sustained, thereby awarding petitioner backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
On October 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, upholding the employer’s right to dismiss on the ground of dishonesty and willful disobedience as provided in the company’s disciplinary rules and the Labor Code.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, contesting the CA’s decision on several grounds, which was later granted by the Supreme Court.

Whether the petition filed for review on certiorari should be treated as proper under Rule 65, despite arguments that it was a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45.

Whether petitioner’s act of lending his company I.D. Card to facilitate warehouse operations constitutes willful disobedience and mental dishonesty justifying his dismissal.
Whether the imposition of dismissal as a penalty was disproportionate and, therefore, illegal given the circumstances surrounding the act committed.