G.R. No. 178184 - Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Galvez

Petitioner Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc. (GASLI) is engaged in transporting liquified petroleum gas from Petron’s refinery in Limay, Bataan to its plants and depots.
Petitioners William How and Eduardo Francisco are its President and General Manager, respectively.
Respondents are crewmembers of GASLI’s vessel M/T Dorothy Uno holding various designations, including Captain (Wilfredo Galvez), Chief Mate (Joel Sales), Chief Engineer (Cristito Gruta), Radio Operator (Danilo Arguelles), and others such as Able Seamen, Oilers, and 2nd Engineer.

In January 2000, Richard Abis, an Oilers aboard the vessel, reported illegal activities involving fuel oil pilferage by respondents. He alleged that substantial volumes of unconsumed fuel oil were misdeclared as consumed, siphoned, and sold, with proceeds divided among respondents.
GASLI's Internal Auditor, Roger de la Rama, issued a certification indicating an overstatement of fuel consumption by 6,954.3 liters, amounting to P74,737.86, during June 30, 1999 to February 15, 2000.
Formal complaints for qualified theft were filed against respondents with the CIDG, accompanied by affidavits from company officials including Elsa Montegrico and findings by Port Captain Genaro Bernabe and others.
Respondents denied the charges, alleging fabrication of complaints, erroneous computations, and absence of evidence specifying the time and specifics of the alleged pilferage. They also highlighted inconsistencies such as some employees not included in the charges despite longer aboard duration.

Respondents, except Sales, were placed under preventive suspension and later terminated for serious misconduct, willful breach of trust, and commission of a crime against employer. Notices were served accordingly.
Other employees aboard different vessels were also dismissed for various violations.
The City Prosecutor found prima facie evidence of qualified theft and filed Information before the RTC.
Notably, the RTC acquitted respondents of the criminal charges on December 19, 2003.

Respondents and others filed complaints before the NLRC for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, benefits, and other claims.
The Labor Arbiter ruled dismissal illegal, citing inadequacy of evidence to prove pilferage and procedural lapses, awarding full reinstatement with back wages, benefits, damages, double indemnity pursuant to RA 8188, and attorney’s fees.
Specific monetary awards were detailed for each respondent, including compensation for unpaid salaries, premiums, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Petitioners appealed; posting a bond smaller than required by NLRC.
Initially, the NLRC denied the motion to reduce appeal bond and ordered additional bond posting, which petitioners failed to comply with.
Despite this, the NLRC subsequently reduced the bond and entertained the appeal, ruling most dismissals valid except that of Sales, who was ruled illegally dismissed. Monetary awards were deleted or reduced based on lack of proof or applicable law, such as denial of premium pays and double indemnity penalties.
Upon reconsideration, even Sales’ reinstatement and awards were deleted, concluding he was not dismissed but abandoned his work.

Respondents petitioned for certiorari assailing the NLRC’s acceptance of appeal despite insufficient bond and denial of reinstatement and awards.
The CA ruled the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory due to petitioners’ failure to post correct bond, annulled the NLRC decisions, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and held respondents were illegally dismissed, including Sales.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.

Legality of respondents’ dismissal in light of prima facie case for qualified theft and evidence.
Validity of the appeal taking cognizance of Labor Arbiter’s Decision given alleged insufficiency of appeal bond.

Whether respondents’ dismissal was lawful considering the evidentiary basis for loss of trust and confidence and the existence of a prima facie criminal charge against them.
Whether the NLRC erred in taking cognizance of petitioners’ appeal despite alleged failure to post the correct amount of appeal bond.
Whether petitioners jointly and severally bear liability for labor claims.
Whether the monetary awards granted by the Labor Arbiter, particularly those for damages, indemnities, and various claims for wages and benefits, are proper.