G.R. No. L-70479 - Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Philippines vs. Lariosa

Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines (petitioner) is the employer.
Carlos Lariosa, a tire builder employed since January 3, 1972, is the dismissed employee/respondent.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is the public respondent that ordered Lariosa’s reinstatement without backwages.

On July 27, 1983, at about 2:00 p.m., Lariosa, while preparing to leave the company premises, underwent a routine security check at the west gate.
During the check, Security Guard Ambrosio Liso frisked Lariosa and Security Guard Virgilio Olvez inspected his personal bag.
Sixteen wool flannel swabs, company property allocated for use in his job, were discovered inside his bag underneath his soiled clothes.
Lariosa’s explanation was that he had overlooked the presence of the swabs when they were given to him by his shift supervisor, although his account was contradicted by the guards’ testimonies.

Firestone terminated Lariosa on August 2, 1983, citing theft and loss of trust as grounds.
The company also filed a criminal complaint for attempted theft with the Rizal province fiscal.
An investigation was promptly conducted by the company’s industrial relations manager, Ms. Villavicencio, in the presence of Lariosa, the union president, and the security guards.
Evidence such as transcripts of the investigation established that Lariosa left the premises hastily after being advised to remain during the report.

Lariosa filed a complaint before the Ministry of Labor and Employment alleging illegal dismissal, violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, and damage claims.
The Labor Arbiter, in the decision dated May 8, 1984, found the dismissal justified.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on December 28, 1984, ruling that dismissal was excessively harsh and ordering Lariosa’s reinstatement without backwages (considering his period of unemployment as suspension).
A discrepancy arose when it was noted that Lariosa’s appeal was filed on June 7, 1984—after the ten-day period prescribed by Article 223 of the Labor Code (interpreted as calendar days) due to miscommunication by the party’s counsel relying on the “working days” notion as stated in the notice.

Not dismissing Lariosa’s appeal for being late.
Finding that Lariosa was not given due process.
Reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter which had originally found the dismissal justified.

The petitioner argued that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion and without proper jurisdiction in ordering reinstatement.

Whether the appeal, filed after the ten-day period stipulated under Article 223 of the Labor Code (interpreted as calendar days), should be considered valid given the alleged misdirection by the notice.

Whether Lariosa was accorded the necessary due process before his dismissal, especially regarding the conduct of the investigation and the proper communication of his termination.

Whether the evidence of attempted theft and misplacement of company property justified the dismissal of Lariosa.
Whether the dismissal, carried out after a thorough investigation corroborated by witness testimonies, was procedurally and substantively sound.

Whether the conclusion of ordering reinstatement (with suspension of backwages) by the NLRC was a proper remedy, given both the gravity of Lariosa’s misconduct and his long service with no previous record.
Whether an alternative remedy, such as awarding separation pay, would better serve the ends of both justice and social/compassionate considerations.