Case Digest (G.R. No. L-58630)
Facts:
San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission and Rodolfo Rebolos, G.R. No. L-58630, November 25, 1983, First Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) sought certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65 challenging the National Labor Relations Commission’s (First Division) October 12, 1981 decision in ROX Arbitration Case No. 026-80 which had modified a Labor Arbiter’s ruling and ordered reinstatement of respondent Rodolfo Rebolos without backwages. The petition alleged grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.Rebolos was hired by SMC in 1969 and promoted to regular salesman in 1970; as a travelling salesman he remitted daily collections and was authorized to drive a company truck. In November 1976 he was involved in a vehicular accident; SMC advanced P7,000 as a cash bond to secure bail, the bond being posted in Rebolos’ name. The criminal case was later dismissed when the insurer paid for damages. About a year later Rebolos withdrew the cash bond and did not remit the money to SMC; when a new plant manager reviewed transactions, the company learned that Rebolos had withdrawn the bond and, after demanding payment on August 21, 1979, Rebolos remitted the P7,000 that same day together with his daily collections.
SMC investigated and, concluding that Rebolos had betrayed the trust reposed in him by failing to remit company funds, placed him on preventive suspension effective December 1, 1979, and sought clearance from the Ministry of Labor to terminate his employment for misappropriation and breach of trust; notice of termination had been given November 19, 1979. Rebolos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with Regional Office No. X, Ministry of Labor, which led to proceedings before a Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Rebolos’ complaint and granted SMC’s application for clearance to terminate him for breach of trust and confidence. On appeal the NLRC, while finding that Rebolos had unreasonably kept the P7,000 for over a year and had not satisfactorily explained the delay, ruled that dismissal was too severe under the circumstances and ordered reinstatement without backwages.
SMC then filed the present Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court, contending that (1) the NLRC gravely abused its discreti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion and act in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of Rebolos despite findings that he misappropriated company funds and breached the trust reposed in him?
- Was the NLRC’s determination that termination was too severe and thus ordering reinstatement contrary to law and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)