Case Digest (G.R. No. 123492)
Facts:
Danilo A. Yap v. National Labor Relations Commission and China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 123492, August 21, 1997, Supreme Court First Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Danilo A. Yap worked for private respondent China Banking Corporation (CBC) from January 1978 until his dismissal effective October 1, 1986; public respondent is the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). This petition was filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking annulment of the NLRC First Division’s Decision of 14 June 1995 and its Order of 6 September 1995 which affirmed and denied reconsideration, respectively, of the labor arbiter’s 2 April 1990 dismissal of Yap’s illegal dismissal complaint.Yap rose through several positions in CBC and, in April 1981, obtained a housing loan under the bank’s Financing Plan for Officers and Employees for P117,977.73, allegedly to construct a house. The bank later discovered that the loan proceeds were not used exclusively for construction as required by the Plan’s implementing rules and asked Yap for an explanation. CBC gave Yap successive memoranda (5 June 1986; 30 June 1986) demanding refund or face disciplinary action; Yap replied (23 June 1986; 11 August 1986) that he used much of the proceeds to reimburse his brother for lot installments and for pre-construction expenses and that devaluation later made construction impracticable. On 26 September 1986 CBC issued a memorandum terminating his employment effective 1 October 1986 for gross violation of the Financing Plan.
On 15 April 1987 Yap filed with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, National Capital Region, a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. Labor Arbiter Dominador M. Cruz rendered judgment on 2 April 1990 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit but awarding P25,000.00 financial assistance. Yap appealed to the NLRC, which, in its First Division Decision dated 14 June 1995, affirmed the labor arbiter in toto, finding that Yap knowingly and fraudulently violated the Plan and that documentary proofs were unsubstantiated or inadmissible. Yap moved for reconsideration on 24 July 1995; the NLRC denied it on 6 September 1995. Yap then filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court, alleging, among others, grave abuse of discret...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the labor arbiter’s dismissal of Yap’s complaint?
- Was the penalty of dismissal justified on the finding that Yap was guilty of dishonesty in misusing the loan proceeds?
- Is the precedent in Toledo v. NLRC controlling or applicable to ju...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)