G.R. No. 211362 - Cudia vs. Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy

Alberto J. Raza was hired by Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. as a driver on January 11, 1999.
He was later assigned to serve as the driver for the company president, Mamoru Ono, with working hours and days dependent on Ono’s schedule and needs.

On the evening of July 21, 2003, after dropping off Ono at his residence in the Pacific Plaza Condominium, Makati City, Raza took the company vehicle to his own home rather than parking it in the designated parking area.
The next morning, when Ono inquired about the location of the vehicle, Raza lied by stating that he had parked it at the condominium building but in the wrong slot.
On July 24, 2003, Raza was served with a Notice of Violation for dishonesty, followed by his written admission on July 25, 2003, in which he acknowledged taking the car home without permission and lying about it, though he asserted that Ono had previously permitted him to do so.

A company Investigation Committee held a hearing where Raza admitted to the unauthorized use and falsification of his explanation, while also suggesting that there had been previous occasions with similar permission allegedly granted by Ono.
The Committee recommended a 12-day suspension without pay for parking the vehicle at his home and lying about it.
Contrary to the recommendation, the company’s General Affairs Manager, Gerardo Gaytano, terminated Raza’s employment on August 7, 2003, citing dishonesty.
Respondents substantiated the dismissal with evidence including a report from the Pacific Plaza Security Office, which recorded 31 prior incidents (from May 1, 2003 to July 20, 2003) wherein Raza had taken the company vehicle home without proper authority.

Raza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Labor Arbiter Lita V. Alibut initially ruled in favor of Raza, ordering his reinstatement and awarding backwages computed from his suspension period along with attorney’s fees.
Respondents appealed the decision; initially, the NLRC dismissed their appeal for technical deficiencies (lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping and proper verification).
Respondents subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which Raza contested as being untimely.
The NLRC, in its May 31, 2006 Resolution, reinstated the appeal and reversed the Labor Arbiter’s findings by ruling that Raza’s repeated unauthorized acts and dishonesty justified his dismissal.
The CA later denied Raza’s petition for review on December 22, 2008, and again denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration dated April 14, 2009, thereby affirming the NLRC’s decision.

Raza contested both the timeliness of the respondents’ motion for reconsideration (arguing it was filed out of time) and the proportionality of the penalty of dismissal.
Respondents maintained that his repeated acts of taking the company vehicle home without authority, and his lie to Ono regarding the same, amounted to serious misconduct warranting his termination.

Whether the respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration, filed on October 21, 2005, was submitted on time with the NLRC.
The validity of relying on postal evidence (envelope stamps and registry receipts) versus the postmaster’s belated certification of an unclear record.

Whether Raza’s repeated acts of parking the company vehicle at his home without authority and lying about it to his superior constituted infractions that justified his dismissal.
Whether the penalty imposed on Raza (termination) was grossly disproportionate relative to the alleged offenses, considering his claim of prior authorization by Ono.

The weight and credibility of evidence, such as the security guards’ report enumerating multiple incidents.
Whether Raza was given sufficient opportunity to explain, contradict, or present evidence refuting the allegations against him during the administrative proceedings.