G.R. No. 96646 - Palagpag vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner, Delfin Palagpag, was initially employed by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company as a mucker on April 28, 1972.
He was finally hired as a regular employee on July 28, 1972.

Record of Repeated Infractions (Absences Without Official Leave and Other Misconduct)

Multiple instances of unauthorized absences (AWOL) were recorded against petitioner:

Absences occurred on August 21, October 16, and December 26, 1978, and February 5, 1979, for which he was warned in writing.
From May 14 to 20, 1979, he was laid off or suspended without pay for seven days due to being AWOL on the aforementioned dates.
Additional warnings were issued as follows:

May 24, 1985: First warning for “firepoling” (driving his trolley pole against the direction of the locomotive).
February 17, 1986: 21st warning for being AWOL on February 8, 1986.

On July 19, 1987, petitioner was apprehended by Lepanto’s security guards for taking gold-bearing rocks (weighing 6.69 kilograms) within the company premises.
Upon being brought to the security office, he refused to give a statement and insisted on answering only before the Mankayan, Benguet Integrated National Police (INP).

Following the incident, petitioner received a notice of preventive suspension from Lepanto, which directed him to respond to the charge of highgrading and explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.
Instead of submitting an explanation, petitioner provided a sworn statement taken by a police sergeant, which was later used as the basis for a criminal complaint alleging violation of P.D. 581 (charge of frustrated highgrading).
Concurrently, petitioner filed a complaint against Lepanto for illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter Norma Olegario rendered a decision dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit (Decision dated April 3, 1989).
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on November 29, 1990.
Petitioner, however, was acquitted in the corresponding criminal case, which became a basis for the petition.

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) committed grave abuse of discretion by affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision declaring petitioner’s dismissal as valid.
Whether due process was observed in the termination of petitioner’s employment.
Whether petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case justifies his reinstatement despite his record of repeated misconduct and the loss of trust by his employer.