Case Digest (G.R. No. 105763)
Facts:
Quinones and Ibarrientos v. National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital Region (NLRC‑NCR), and Superstar Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 105763, July 14, 1995, Supreme Court First Division, Quiason, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Lorendo Quinones and Edgar Ibarrientos were security guards employed by Superstar Security Agency, Inc. (SSAI) and assigned to the Duty Free Shop at the Food Terminal Inc. (FTI) compound in Bicutan, Paranaque. After being charged with drinking liquor within company premises, they were placed on temporary off‑detail status.
On December 15, 1988, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SSAI. By letter dated January 3, 1989, SSAI informed petitioners that their services were terminated effective that date for "serious misconduct in engaging in a drinking spree at company premises in FTI detachment on 2 November 1988 that resulted in the stabbing of one co‑guard participant."
The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated January 11, 1990, found the dismissals illegal and ordered immediate reinstatement with full back wages. The Arbiter accepted petitioners’ account that they were invited to a birthday party on November 2, 1988, that the group first met at the FTI security office and then went to a nearby sari‑sari store where they drank while off duty, and that the stabbing occurred during that off‑duty drinking session.
The NLRC (NCR), however, reversed the Labor Arbiter by decision dated July 19, 1991. It relied on sworn statements of four other participants—Alfredo Perez, Cesar San Andres, Catalino Barcena, Jr., and Joel Balanueco—who positively identified petitioners as among those who drank liquor in front of the FTI security office, and on testimony of Pablito Pornasdoro that drinking occurred while still within company premises. The NLRC concluded that petitioners had admitted to drinking at company premises and that such infraction was punishable by dismissal. The NLRC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on April 15, 1992.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings and credibility determinations?
- Was dismissal the proper penalty for petitioners’ admitted conduct, or should a lesser penalty have...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)