Title
Auxilio, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 82189
Decision Date
Aug 2, 1990
Employee dismissed for theft after inconclusive polygraph, avoidance of investigation; SC upheld termination citing loss of trust, due process compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 82189)

Factual Background and Employment History

Porfirio Auxilio, Jr. was employed by Baguio Country Club Corporation initially as a houseman in 1977, became a regular employee in 1978, and was assigned as front desk clerk in 1981 with a basic monthly salary of P524.00. His job duties included handling hotel rooms, guest registration, and operating the switchboard.

Incident and Investigation

On January 17, 1982, P15,000.00 went missing from the cashier’s office at the Country Club. The loss was reported to management the following day, prompting an immediate police investigation. Findings ruled out any forced entry or robbery, concluding it was an “inside job.” Employees with access to the cashier’s office, including petitioner, were questioned and subjected to a polygraph examination by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for 30 days starting January 20, 1982, pending further investigation.

Polygraph Results and Petitioner’s Non-Compliance

The polygraph examination revealed petitioner could not satisfactorily explain answers related to the missing funds, whereas other employees showed no signs of deception. Petitioner refused to attend subsequent police investigations citing illness. The polygraph report dated February 16, 1982, noted petitioner’s failure to give a satisfactory explanation for adverse results. Notices for further investigation were sent but were rejected by petitioner’s wife, and petitioner could not be located at his residence.

Termination of Employment

On February 20, 1982, Baguio Country Club Corporation issued a memorandum terminating petitioner on grounds of "loss of trust and confidence" and “giving false statements during official investigation.”

Initial Labor Arbiter Decision

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing dismissal was based only on suspicion and denied him procedural due process as per the grievance procedure outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner on October 26, 1984, ordering reinstatement due to failure of the employer to prove the legality of the dismissal by a preponderance of evidence.

NLRC Decision and Reversal

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on February 12, 1988, dismissing petitioner’s illegal dismissal complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC found that the employer’s action was justified based on the evidence, and due process was observed.

Due Process and Grievance Machinery

The court examined the grievance procedure in the CBA, noting that it was designed to address controversies regarding workplace rules, practices, and conditions. The procedure did not apply to the factual circumstances of this case, which involved theft and loss of trust. The petitioner failed to avail himself of the grievance remedy properly. The court found that petitioner was afforded due process through notice and opportunity to be heard, which he waived by avoiding investigation sessions.

Grounds for Dismissal: Loss of Trust and Confidence

The court emphasized that loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissal under Philippine labor law. Absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; r

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.