Case Digest (G.R. No. 126805)
Facts:
Philippine Airlines Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (3rd Division) and Marcelito Pescante, G.R. No. 126805, March 16, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the NLRC Decision of June 20, 1996 (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-04118-94) and its Resolution of September 12, 1996, which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.On January 19, 1993, Marcelito Pescante (private respondent), a load controller for Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), and fellow employee Edgar Vicente (a check-in clerk) were assigned to handle flight PR 841 to Cebu. The load controller manifests passenger baggage and determines aircraft load balance; check-in clerks record baggage weight on tickets. Load controllers are, by policy, prohibited from assisting in passenger check-in to prevent collusion with check-in clerks.
A passenger, Myla Cominero, escorted by PNP Sgt. Jose Tompong, checked in seven pieces of baggage. Sgt. Tompong's sworn statement — admitted by both parties as common evidence — recounts that as CIC Vicente prepared tags he interposed, spoke to the passenger about excess weight, and told her she would pay "more than P1,000"; Tompong received a roll of P1,000 to give to "the man who checked her in," and later observed Vicente take the money around 1500H. Subsequent events showed anomalies: Cominero's baggage was pooled with other passengers' coupons; she initially failed to board and her baggage was to be off-loaded; later she returned, claimed she had paid P1,000 without receipt, and eventually paid additional sums on arrival in Cebu.
PAL's cashier, Loreto Condez, stated that around 5:30 p.m. Vicente paid P983.50 to cover excess baggage and that an Excess Baggage Ticket (EBT) was issued only after Vicente presented a flight coupon. Vicente later submitted a report implicating Pescante, alleging that Pescante suggested intercepting the passenger in Cebu and handed Vicente P1,000 to have the fee issued. Co-workers (including CSA Alfredo Pelayo and Irene Cancio) also gave statements describing Pescante's involvement and urging PX check-in by proxy.
On January 29, 1993, PAL filed an administrative case charging Pescante and Vicente with "fraud against the company" under its Code of Discipline; both were found guilty and dismissed. Pescante's Step III grievance was denied. On May 27, 1994, Pescante filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter. On July 31, 1995, the labor arbiter dismissed his complaint, upholding the dismissal as valid and for just cause, but awarded P5,000 as financial assistance in equity.
Pescante appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on June 20, 1996 reversed the labor arbiter, finding PAL failed to prove that Pescante defrauded ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the labor arbiter's finding that Pescante's dismissal was valid for just cause?
- Was the NLRC legally justified in dismissing or giving no probative value to the statements of co‑employees Edgar Vicente and Alfred Pelayo?
- Is actual or material damage to the employer's revenues necessary to uphold dismissal for loss of trust and confidence when an employee attempts to defraud the company?
- Was the NLRC justified in ordering...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)