Case Digest (G.R. No. 191288)
Facts:
Manila Electric Company (petitioner) v. Jan Carlo Gala (respondent), G.R. Nos. 191288 & 191304, February 29, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.
On March 2, 2006, Jan Carlo Gala commenced work as a probationary lineman for Manila Electric Company (Meralco) assigned to its Valenzuela Sector. After about one month he was shifted among crews; on May 25, 2006 he was assigned to Truck No. 1891 under Foreman Nemecio Hipolito. While the crew was replacing a pole at Pacheco Subdivision, a non-Meralco individual, Noberto Bing Llanes, boarded the trucks and removed electrical supplies. Several foremen and linemen were present; Meralco later concluded that pilferage had been occurring and that Llanes had been acting as the conduit for removal of supplies.
Unbeknownst to Gala and the crew, a Meralco surveillance task force (Joseph Aguilar, Ariel Dola and Frederick Riano) monitored and recorded the operation. After investigation, Meralco terminated Gala’s employment on July 27, 2006 for alleged complicity in pilferage. Gala denied participation, claiming he was at some distance, had no inkling of wrongdoing, was merely following instructions, and lacked authority to control disposition of materials.
Gala filed an illegal dismissal complaint before the Labor Arbiter. On September 7, 2007, Labor Arbiter Teresita D. Castillon-Lora dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding Gala’s participation rendered him unfit for regularization. Gala appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On May 2, 2008, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter, finding Gala illegally dismissed but denying reinstatement because his probationary period had already expired; it awarded backwages and attorney’s fees. Motions for reconsideration by both parties were denied.
Both parties then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) by certiorari under Rule 65. In its August 25, 2009 decision (CA-G.R. SP. Nos. 105943 & 106021), the CA denied Meralco’s petition and partially granted Gala’s: it affirmed that Gala was illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and benefits. Meralco filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (Rule...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court dismiss Meralco’s petition on procedural grounds for alleged defects in verification, certification, and counsel’s MCLE numbers?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that Gala was illegally dismissed and in ordering his reinstatement despite his ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)