Title
JRS Business Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 108891
Decision Date
Jul 17, 1995
Employee dismissed over alleged cash shortage; Supreme Court ruled dismissal illegal due to insufficient evidence, awarded separation pay, and penalized employer for violating preventive suspension rules.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108891)

Case Background and Employment Status

Robert A. Nacario was employed by JRS Business Corporation starting April 7, 1980, and eventually promoted to Station Manager. In September 1988, an internal audit conducted by Fernando T. dela Cerna uncovered a cash shortage totaling ₱145,564.33, leading to a series of events concerning Nacario’s employment standing. Following the audit, Treasurer Milady J. Munoz issued a notice requiring Nacario to explain the cash discrepancies.

Investigation and Suspension

On September 27, 1988, Nacario was informed of a temporary appointment for acting leadership by Dela Cerna and directed to report to him pending the investigation. On October 12, 1988, Nacario was put on leave without pay, beginning October 15, 1988, as part of the investigative process. In response, Nacario submitted a letter on October 13, stating his defense against allegations contained in affidavits presented by other employees.

Legal Action and Labor Arbiter's Ruling

On February 6, 1989, viewing his indefinite leave as a constructive dismissal, Nacario filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, back wages, and other claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled on September 20, 1989, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Nacario appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

NLRC Ruling

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on October 12, 1992, finding that Nacario was illegally dismissed but instead issued a monetary compensation of separation pay rather than reinstatement. This decision considered the impracticality of reinstatement in maintaining industrial peace, particularly as Nacario was a managerial employee.

Evaluation of Evidence

The divergence between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC largely stemmed from the characterization of the evidence against Nacario. The affidavits provided by third-party employees were deemed not credible as they were not verified under oath, thus lacking probative value. Furthermore, one of the main affiants, Elizabeth Paulino, later absolved Nacario of any responsibility concerning the cash shortage.

Preventive Suspension Violations

The case also involved assessing the legalit

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.