Case Digest (G.R. No. 117038)
Facts:
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Avelino Micabalo and Prospero Enriquez, G.R. No. 117038, September 25, 1997, Supreme Court Third Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL); respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and employees Avelino Micabalo and Prospero Enriquez, both former PAL ticketing/load-control clerks and PALEA union officials. The Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion before the Court supporting PAL's position.
Micabalo (hired 1979) and Enriquez (hired 1975) were assigned to PAL’s Davao Station and occupied union posts (Micabalo on PALEA’s board; Enriquez as chief steward). A company audit showed discrepancies between the audit coupons and flight coupons of certain tickets: audit coupons reflected “Charge” or “Cash/Charge” while corresponding flight coupons showed “Cash” or were blank. PAL’s investigation found instances where employees allegedly used personal or co-employees’ credit cards to pay for tickets while passengers purportedly paid cash; entries were allegedly altered to conceal the transactions.
PAL instituted administrative investigations, filed multiple charges against Micabalo and Enriquez (fraud under Section 2, Article VIII and falsification under Section 5, Article VIII of PAL’s Code of Discipline), and placed them under preventive suspension in mid-1989. Micabalo and Enriquez submitted written defenses claiming accommodation or humanitarian motives, that cash had not actually been pocketed, and that any corrections were to make records truthful. Both were ultimately dismissed by PAL in October–November 1989.
On January 8, 1990 Micabalo and Enriquez (joined by other dismissed employees initially) filed complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Davao. The Labor Arbiter, Antonio M. Villanueva, ruled the dismissals illegal, ordered reinstatement without loss of seniority, awarded one year’s backwages and 10% attorney’s fees, and dismissed other claims. The NLRC’s Fifth Division affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision (Resolution dated June 23, 1993) and denied PAL’s motion for reconsideration (Resolution dated June 27, 1994 in NLRC CA No. M-000291).
PAL sought review by way of a special civil action for certiorari (challenging NLRC’s exercise of jurisdiction/for grave abuse of discretion) to this Court, contending the NLRC and Labor Arbiter grossly misapprecia...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that private respondents were illegally dismissed?
- If not, was dismissal an appropriate penalty for the misconduct found (fraud and falsification o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)