G.R. No. 52789 - Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioners: Jovencio Mina, Ricardo Wangit, Anthony Farnican, Peter Atuban, and Arthur Altatis.
Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc.
Two cases of illegal dismissal were filed on December 11, 1981 – Case No. 0044-81 by Anthony Farnican, Arthur Altatis, and Ricardo Wangit; and Case No. 0045-81 by Jovencio Mina and Peter Atuban – consolidated due to the common causes of action against the same respondent.

On November 20, 1981, between 11:00 p.m. and 11:45 p.m., petitioners were allegedly caught in the act of highgrading underground at the 14 Vein, 23 Position, 1400 Level.
Details from the respondent's version:

Five mine patrols were dispatched and encountered the respondent’s mine engineer, who was the leadman of the petitioners, along with two security guards carrying two sacks of highgrade ore.
With headlights off, the mine patrols proceeded down the manway to the site where they witnessed petitioners breaking and pulverizing highgrade ores within a span of five minutes.
A lookout miner alerted his companions by exclaiming “Adda tao!” (Ilocano for “the guards are here!”), prompting the arrest of the petitioners.

Evidence allegedly recovered during the apprehension included a plastic bag containing highgrade ores, hammers, and iron tubes used for breaking the ores.

SG Freddie Bragado, the security guard on post, reportedly warned the petitioners to cease their illegal activity.
Petitioners then threatened SG Bragado, causing him—despite being armed with a shotgun—to refrain from proper action.
It was also alleged that one petitioner attempted to bribe the apprehending officers with P1,000.00 each, an offer that was refused by the guards.

Following the incident, petitioners were investigated, placed on preventive suspension on November 23, 1981, and subsequently dismissed on December 3, 1981.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on April 28, 1986, finding that petitioners were illegally dismissed and ordering their reinstatement, back wages (including ECOLA and 13th month pay), and attorney’s fees.
The respondent appealed to the NLRC. On October 18, 1989, the Third Division of the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but limited the back wage award to three years.
Between this decision and the subsequent resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, a reorganization occurred under Administrative Order No. 161 on November 18, 1989. The reorganization reassigned commissioners within the NLRC’s divisions.
The motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent was later resolved by the reconstituted Third Division on November 29, 1990, setting aside the earlier resolution and declaring the petitioners’ dismissal valid.
Petitioners contended that the motion for reconsideration should have been handled by the same commissioners as those who rendered the prior decision, a claim that was ultimately rejected based on jurisdictional rules.

Whether the reassignment and change in membership in the Third Division due to the NLRC’s reorganization affect the resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
Whether petitioners’ argument that the motion for reconsideration ought to have been decided by the same members who made the original decision is tenable under existing NLRC rules and law.

Whether there is substantial evidence establishing that the petitioners engaged in highgrading, thereby justifying their dismissal.
Whether the respondent company’s loss of trust and confidence in the petitioners—stemming from the alleged act of highgrading—constitutes just cause for termination.

The assessment of the evidence presented, including the sworn statements of the security guard, joint affidavits of other security personnel, and physical evidence allegedly recovered from the petitioners.
The weight and finality given to the factual findings of labor administrative officials when secured by substantial evidence.