Title
Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Philippines vs. Lariosa
Case
G.R. No. L-70479
Decision Date
Feb 27, 1987
Carlos Lariosa, a Firestone employee, was dismissed for theft after flannel swabs were found in his bag. Despite a late appeal due to a misleading notice, the Supreme Court upheld dismissal but awarded separation pay, citing theft as valid grounds but considering his 11-year service.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-70479)

Background of the Case

Carlos Lariosa commenced his employment with Firestone on January 3, 1972, ultimately assuming the role of a tire builder. On July 27, 1983, during a standard security check at the company’s premises, Lariosa was found in possession of sixteen flannel swabs belonging to the company, hidden in his personal bag. This discovery led to his dismissal on August 2, 1983, on the grounds of "stealing company property and loss of trust." Subsequently, Firestone filed a criminal complaint against him for attempted theft.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC

In response to his dismissal, Lariosa filed a complaint against Firestone for illegal dismissal and claimed violations of labor laws and damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled on May 8, 1984, affirming the validity of Lariosa's dismissal. However, upon appeal, the NLRC overturned the Arbiter's decision on December 28, 1984, citing that the dismissal was excessively severe and ordering Lariosa's reinstatement without backwages, treating the duration of his absence as a suspension.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

Firestone challenged the NLRC's decision through a petition for certiorari, claiming that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion by accepting Lariosa's appeal despite its late filing. Firestone contended that Lariosa was afforded due process, and therefore the Commission's reversal of the Labor Arbiter's ruling was unjustified.

Appellate Lapses and Legal Interpretation

Lariosa's appeal, filed on June 7, 1984, was indeed late according to Article 223 of the Labor Code, which stipulates a ten-day reglementary period for such appeals. However, considering potential misleading guidance regarding this timeframe and the intent of the law to protect employee rights, the Supreme Court expressed a willingness to overlook this procedural lapse in order to address the merits of the case.

Findings on the Alleged Misconduct

The investigation revealed substantial evidence of Lariosa's involvement in the attempted theft. Testimonies from security personnel contradicted Lariosa's defense, revealing inconsistencies in his claims regarding the flannel swabs. Firestone's actions, which included conducting a thorough investigation and timely issuing a dismissal notice, indicated adherence to legal procedures and was deemed justifiable under allegations of serious misconduct.

Judicial Conclusion on Grounds for Dismissal

The Supreme Court affirmed that theft, particularly by an employee entrusted with company property, constitutes valid grounds for termination. The ruling emphasized that dishonesty in handling company property undermines the employer’s trust, thereby warranting di

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.