Case Digest (G.R. No. 79718-22)
Facts:
Quezon Electric Cooperative v. National Labor Relations Commission, Maynardo Tanada, Renato Bacube, Flaviano O. Agubang, Petronio R. Pobeda, and Ramon A. Pareja, G.R. Nos. 79718-22, April 12, 1989, Supreme Court Third Division, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Quezon Electric Cooperative; the private respondents are five of its employees: Maynardo Tanada (Disconnecting Officer), Renato Bacube (Lineman), Flaviano O. Agubang (Groundman), Petronio R. Pobeda (Housewiring Estimator/Inspector), and Ramon A. Pareja (Bill Collector). In 1984 the Cooperative investigated pilferage of electricity and found 14 employees implicated; nine agreed to resign and later claimed separation benefits, while the five respondents refused to resign and were dismissed from employment.
Petitioner offered investigative memoranda and technical exhibits as evidence of meter tampering and illegal connections at the private respondents’ residences: for Tanada, a neutral wire pulled from conduit and a large disparity between estimated and registered KWH; for Bacube, peeled duplex wiring, an unauthorized different meter, and consumption disparity; for Agubang, appliances directly tapped to the service drop; for Pobeda, an upside-down meter installation; and for Pareja, a peeled service drop accessible from a house opening. The Cooperative relied also on its Policy No. 35 that prescribes dismissal for employee-consumers found using tampered meters.
The Labor Arbiter found that while there was basis to suspect pilferage, the evidence was insufficient to prove that the respondents knowingly used tampered meters or devices and therefore ordered their reinstatement with backwages; claims for unpaid or underpaid benefits were dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Cooperative filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court seeking re...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement award?
- Was the dismissal of the private respondents justified on the ground of loss of confidence or pilferage of electricity?
- If dismissal was illegal, is reinstatement with backwages the proper remedy or should separation pay be awarded instead, a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)