Case Digest (G.R. No. 84282)
Facts:
Manila Electric Company v. National Labor Relations Commission and Isagani V. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 84282, March 06, 1990, Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), employed respondent Isagani V. De La Cruz as a meter reader since June 30, 1980. On October 20, 1985 De La Cruz and his brother-in-law, Jaime R. Munera, were reported by residents near the PNR Compound in Paco, Manila to barangay authorities on suspicion of impersonating company inspectors and extorting money after discovering alleged illegal electrical connections. During a police investigation an MERALCO line patrol inspector, Edilberto O. Sierra, stated that an electric meter previously recorded at one address had been found installed at another residence, and that De La Cruz lacked authority to install meters.
Two criminal complaints followed: one for robbery-extortion (dismissed for failure to prosecute) and one for qualified theft (dismissed for insufficiency of evidence). MERALCO placed De La Cruz on preventive suspension on December 2, 1985 and initiated an internal administrative investigation on December 9, 1985. De La Cruz denied wrongdoing, submitted a sworn explanation that he accompanied his brother-in-law that day and that Munera alone installed an inactivated meter, and maintained he did not extort anyone; Munera corroborated parts of this account but denied extortion.
On March 3, 1986 MERALCO dismissed De La Cruz. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed NLRC-NCR Case No. 5-2098-86. The labor arbiter resolved the case on the parties' position papers without a clarificatory hearing, accepting the company’s version and finding that De La Cruz’s conduct justified dismissal; the arbiter nonetheless found MERALCO violated the 30-day limit on preventive suspension under Section 4, Rule XIV of the Rules implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 and awarded De La Cruz pay for the excess suspension period plus compassionate pay.
De La Cruz appealed to the NLRC Fourth Division. In a decision promulgated July 18, 1988, the Commission set aside the labor arbiter’s ruling, found the dismissal illegal, ordered reinstatement without loss of seniority and payment of backwages from March 5, 1987 until actual reinstatement, and directed payment of the withheld two months’ salary representing preventive suspension in excess of the 30-day maximum; it alternatively directed separation pay if reinstatement proved infeasible. The NLRC based its result on findings that De La Cruz had not been allowed to confront his accusers during company investigation, that documentary “statements” submitted by MERALCO lacked authentication, that criminal cases against him were dismissed, and that MERALCO’s investigation was defective.
MERALCO sought relief in this Court, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and violated its own rules by reversing the arbiter who had discretion under Section 3, Rule VII of the Revised Rules of the NLRC to determine whether a hearing was necessary. The petitioner also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Court treat the petition as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 despite its erroneous caption?
- Did the National Labor Relations Commission commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the labor arbiter’s decision and ordering reinstatement of De La Cruz?
- Was De La Cruz entitled to payment for the period of preventive suspension in excess of the statutory 30-day limit under Section 4, Rule XIV of the Rul...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)