Case Summary (G.R. No. 82189)
Facts: Theft Discovery and Initial Investigation
On January 17, 1982, P15,000.00 placed in the Club’s cashier’s office was discovered missing; the loss was reported on January 18, 1982. The Baguio City Police conducted a spot investigation, found no signs of forcible entry or robbery, and concluded the incident was likely an “inside job.” Employees with access to the cashier’s office, including petitioner, were invited for questioning.
Polygraph Examination and Petitioner’s Conduct
All employees questioned denied stealing the money and were subjected to polygraph examinations conducted by the NBI. Petitioner’s polygraph result indicated he could not fully explain answers to vital questions. He refused a subsequent invitation to police headquarters for further investigation, allegedly claiming illness during the polygraph. The polygraph report dated February 16, 1982, concluded petitioner offered no satisfactory explanation for the adverse result; other employees’ polygraph explanations showed no indications of deception.
Preventive Suspension and Termination
Petitioner was placed under preventive suspension on January 20, 1982, for the usual 30-day period pending investigation. Repeated notices to petitioner for further investigation were returned or rejected by his wife, and petitioner could not be located at his residence. By Memorandum dated February 20, 1982, Baguio Country Club Corporation terminated petitioner’s employment, citing “loss of trust and confidence” and “giving false statement during official investigation.”
Administrative Proceedings: Labor Arbiter Decision
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, alleging dismissal rested on mere suspicion and that he was denied the grievance procedure under the CBA. On October 26, 1984, Labor Arbiter Saturnino P. Orate ordered petitioner’s reinstatement, finding that the employer failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence the legality of the dismissal.
NLRC Review and Reversal
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision by its February 12, 1988 resolution, dismissing petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal and finding the termination legal and valid. Petitioner sought certiorari review with the Supreme Court contesting that the CBA grievance machinery was not observed and that the termination relied on mere suspicion and the polygraph result.
Supreme Court’s Review: Grievance Machinery Not Applicable
The Court examined the CBA grievance provisions and concluded the enumerated instances to invoke the grievance machinery were not present. There was no overt act by petitioner that triggered the Step 1 supervisory grievance procedure. The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s point that the matter concerned the employer’s disciplinary action in light of investigative findings, not a CBA-covered grievance procedure.
Supreme Court’s Review: Due Process Was Afforded
The Court found that due process — notice and opportunity to be heard — was satisfied. Petitioner had been notified and repeatedly invited to further investigation but effectively refused to cooperate by being absent from his residence and allowing notices to be returned or rejected. The employer’s invitations and the police investigation constituted adequate opportunity to be heard; petitioner’s failure to appear constituted rejection of that opportunity.
Supreme Court’s Review: Loss of Trust and Confidence as Valid Ground
The Court reaffirmed that loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissal where the job requires substantial trust. The employer need not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; it suffices that there is some basis or reasonable ground to believe the employee is responsible for the misconduct, rendering the employee unworthy of the trust demanded by the position. Petitioner’s role (access to cashier’s office, guest registration, switchboard duties) required trust and confidence.
Evidence Supporting Employer’s Conclusion
Specific factual findings supporting employer action included: petitioner’s admitted borrowing of a nail cutter (among the cashier’s keys); his erratic reactions during investigator questioning which narrowed suspicion toward him; the adverse polygraph res
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 82189)
Case Caption, Citation and Date
- Reported at 266 Phil. 289, Second Division.
- G.R. No. 82189.
- Decision rendered August 02, 1990.
- Decision penned by Justice Paras.
- Concurrence by Justices Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado.
- Justice Sarmiento was on leave.
Parties
- Petitioner: Porfirio Auxilio, Jr.
- Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (public respondent), Baguio Country Club Corporation (private respondent), and Lolita Genove.
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for certiorari seeking review of the NLRC decision dated February 12, 1988.
- Petitioner sought reversal of the NLRC’s reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order; i.e., petitioner challenges NLRC’s finding that his dismissal was legal and valid and the dismissal of his complaint for illegal dismissal.
Undisputed Facts — Employment Background
- Petitioner was first employed by Baguio Country Club Corporation as a houseman in 1977.
- He became a regular employee in 1978.
- In 1981, he was assigned as a front desk clerk with a basic pay of P524.00 per month.
- His duties included being in charge of hotel rooms, receiving guests’ registration and acting as switchboard operator.
- Petitioner had access to the cashier’s office and to keys (he admitted borrowing the cashier’s nail cutter among the bunch of keys to the cashier’s drawer).
Undisputed Facts — Theft Incident and Initial Investigation
- On January 17, 1982, P15,000.00 placed in the cashier’s office of Baguio Country Club was found missing.
- The loss was reported to management on January 18, 1982.
- The Baguio City Police Department conducted a spot investigation forthwith.
- Police investigation found no signs of forcible entry or external robbery and concluded the incident was an “inside job.”
- All employees with access to the cashier’s office, including petitioner, were invited for questioning and all initially denied stealing the money.
- The employees were subjected to a polygraph examination conducted by the NBI.
- On January 20, 1982, petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for the usual 30-day period pending the final result of the investigation.
Polygraph, Police Follow-up and Employer Action
- Results of petitioner’s polygraph examination indicated that he could not fully explain his answers to vital questions relative to the missing money.
- Petitioner was again invited to Police Headquarters for further investigation but refused to attend, stating he was not feeling well when under the polygraph examination.
- The polygraph report on petitioner dated February 16, 1982 declared that petitioner offered no satisfactory explanation for the adverse result of the polygraph test.
- Other employees subjected to the same polygraph examination showed no indications of deception and explained their side satisfactorily that they did not steal the money.
- Petitioner was asked to appear for investigation by management, but no further examination was conducted by the police or the employer because petitioner could not be found at his residence and notices sent to him were rejected by his wife.
- In a Memorandum dated February 20, 1982, Baguio Country Club Corporation terminated Porfirio Auxilio, Jr. for “loss of trust and confidence” and for “giving false statement during official investigation.”
Administrative Proceedings — Labor Arbiter
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.
- Petitioner alleged dismissal on mere suspicion and contended he was denied opportunity to defend himself pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) grievance procedure.
- Labor Arbiter Saturnino P. Orate, in a decision dated October 26, 1984, ordered the reinstatement of petitioner.
- The Labor Arbiter found that private respondent failed to establish by preponderance of evidence the legality of the dismissal and that there was no reasonable ground to dismiss petitioner.
Administrative Proceedings — NLRC
- On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision by its decision dated February 12, 1988.
- The NLRC dismissed petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit.
- Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari to review the NLRC decision.
Petitioner’s Contentions on Review
- Petitioner claims he was denied due process because the grievance procedure provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement was not strictly observed.
- Petitioner maintains that, with the Labor Arbiter’s rejection of the probative value of his alleged flight, the Special Investigation Report and the Polygraph Report, his dismissal was not legal.
- Petitioner asserts he was dismissed on mere suspicion of having stolen the money.
Respondent’s and NLRC’s Findings as Recited by the Court
- The Court found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter.
- The C