Title
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. vs. Mamaril
Case
G.R. No. 225725
Decision Date
Jan 16, 2019
A security guard accused of conspiring in theft was dismissed without just cause due to insufficient evidence; he and colleagues were awarded unpaid overtime, holiday, and rest day pay.
security guard
unjust dismissal
mining company

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225725)

Factual Background: Employment, Duties, and the Incident of October 8, 2006

Lepanto hired Mamaril as a security guard on 14 November 2003. From that time, he had been assigned to the Security Reaction Force (SRF), a specialized group of security guards created by retired Col. Wilhelm D. Doromal. The SRF performed special duties that required members to “react” in case of any eventuality while minimizing the risk of creating a “vacuum” at posted posts. Because of the SRF’s sensitive and critical duties, SRF members were required to be on duty and on call for twenty-four hours, seven days a week, were posted alternately to sensitive posts, were not allowed to go home except on rest days, and were required to stay at the SRF resting quarters at Victoria Hill when not assigned, remaining on call for reports of infiltration or “highgraders.”

In return, SRF members received specified compensation and benefits, including free rice supply and housing, an additional rate of P20 to their daily rate, and overtime pay equivalent to one hour of overtime work. The SRF had regular escort and security obligations, including guarding an airstrip during arrival and departure of Lepanto’s plane, and securing transport activities for gravity production transports done twice daily.

On 8 October 2006, at around 7:25 p.m., Lepanto’s security intelligence operatives Arthur Bangkilas and Romeo Velasco apprehended Eliseo Sumibang, Jr. (Sumibang), a mine division employee working as a mucker, for stealing skinned copper wires from the Lepanto Mine Division in Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet. Mamaril, the guard on duty at the time, was also apprehended because he was allegedly the one who opened the man door of the Tubo Collar gate and was said to have conspired with Sumibang so the wires would be brought out and loaded into a tricycle.

Following the incident, Lepanto placed Sumibang and Mamaril under preventive suspension for qualified theft of skinned copper wires. Bangkilas and Velasco executed a Spot Report and a Joint-Affidavit, describing that reliable information led them to conduct surveillance at the Tubo Collar area, particularly the shaft gate, due to alleged rampant pilferage involving some shaft men, electricians, and an assigned duty guard. The information indicated the pilferage would likely occur between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and that a tricycle would be used to transport the stolen items.

During the surveillance, the two guards positioned themselves about 40 meters away from the Tubo Collar gate, behind a store along the national road. At about 7:20 p.m., they claimed they saw Foreman Arceo Manginga exit the man door. About five minutes later, they claimed they saw a tricycle with two passengers and with its headlights switched off stop at the Tubo Collar gate. They alleged that when the man door was opened by the assigned duty guard (Mamaril), someone went out and something was loaded into the tricycle within about one minute. They then emerged, attempted to intercept, chased the tricycle toward Tabbac Road, caught up with it, and identified the passenger as Sumibang. Physical evidence recovered by security officers included skinned copper wires weighing 110.45 kilograms, wrapped in four muddy and wet burlap sheets, brought to the Mankayan Police Station.

Mamaril’s Position During the Formal Hearing and Lepanto’s Basis for Dismissal

At the formal hearing held on 16 October 2006, Mamaril explained that he was the third shift guard assigned from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. at the Tubo Collar gate, which included both a butterfly gate for vehicles and a man door gate for employees. He denied participating in or conspiring with Sumibang. He asserted that on 8 October 2006, he was on roving patrol at the NPC station. He stated that around past 7:00 p.m., he opened the man door to allow Foreman Arceo Manginga to exit, and that he later conducted roving inspections with NPC security guard Salvador Macaraeg.

Mamaril admitted that he left the man door hooked on its barrel bolt but did not padlock it, explaining that underground employees might need to come out at any time. He claimed that after he encountered NPC mechanics working at welding jobs, he heard a whistle from the Tubo Collar gate direction, then proceeded to his post and saw other security men arriving, prompting him to unhook the barrel bolt and allow them to enter. He denied knowledge and participation in the theft and presented sworn affidavits from mechanics who claimed they saw him on roving patrol while the theft was taking place. He also offered statements from other personnel, including Tubo Electrical Foreman Andrew Dacyon, who indicated there were no losses of power line stock at relevant locations and speculated that the recovered skinned copper wires might have come from abandoned mine underground areas. Security guard Salvador Macaraeg and miner Nelson Badua provided additional recollections of events.

Lepanto’s Security Investigator submitted an Investigation Report indicating the estimated value of the stolen items was P16,898.85. Subsequently, Lepanto’s Legal Office issued a resolution dated 4 November 2006 finding Mamaril guilty of qualified theft based on alleged conspiracy with Sumibang. Lepanto dismissed him from employment for dishonesty and breach of trust and confidence.

Consolidated Labor Cases and the NLRC Proceedings

On 21 November 2006, Mamaril filed a complaint with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch, Cordillera Administrative Region (NLRC RAB-CAR) for illegal dismissal, seeking full backwages or, in lieu thereof, separation pay, as well as claims for overtime pay, rest day pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.

On 22 January 2007, several other Lepanto security guards, including Eduardo Fontiveros and other SRF members identified in the pleadings, filed a complaint seeking payment of overtime pay, rest day pay, night shift differentials, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Their basis included the strike made by members of the Lepanto Employees Union from 2 June to 11 September 2005, during which SRF members were allegedly ordered to be on duty around the clock and to render overtime work even on holidays and rest days.

On 30 April 2007, other complainants filed another complaint for payment of overtime pay, damages, and attorney’s fees. On 21 May 2007, Lepanto abolished and deactivated the SRF. Upon motion of all complainants, and without Lepanto’s objection, the three cases were consolidated.

In its Answer, Lepanto claimed Mamaril’s dismissal was for just and valid causes. Lepanto relied on the joint affidavit and report of Bangkilas and Velasco identifying Mamaril as the guard who opened the man door, framing Mamaril’s alleged infraction as dishonesty and breach of trust. For monetary claims, Lepanto argued that complainants failed to prove that they rendered work beyond eight hours and on holidays and rest days. Lepanto also invoked daily time sheets allegedly signed by respondents and countersigned by their supervisor.

The Labor Arbiter of NLRC RAB-CAR, in a Joint Decision dated 4 March 2008, ruled for Lepanto. It held that Mamaril, as a security guard entrusted with handling, custody, care, and protection of company property, held a position of trust and confidence, and that he was terminated for just cause. The Labor Arbiter gave credence to Bangkilas and Velasco and treated Mamaril’s witnesses as hearsay for lack of knowledge of pilferage. As to monetary claims, the Labor Arbiter found respondents failed to prove overtime and extra work on holidays and rest days with adequate specificity and rejected their proof regarding approval or authority to order overtime. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints for lack of merit.

On appeal, the NLRC, in a Resolution dated 8 January 2010, partially granted the appeal. It ruled that Mamaril’s dismissal was without valid and just cause. It found the testimony that Bangkilas and Velasco recognized Mamaril as the one who opened the man door to be physically impossible and contrary to human experience, given factors such as darkness, the switched-off light at the guard post, the witnesses’ approximately 40-meter distance from the man door, and the incident’s brief duration. The NLRC also upheld Mamaril’s alibi of roving duty and his admission of being lax in not padlocking the man door. The NLRC thus awarded Mamaril separation pay and full backwages. For the other complainants, however, the NLRC found they had not presented sufficient evidence for overtime, holiday, and rest day pay, subject to later modification.

Following partial motions for reconsideration, the NLRC issued a Resolution dated 13 August 2010, granting in part the complainants’ motion. It ordered Lepanto to pay overtime pay, rest day and holiday pays to specified respondents, including Mamaril and multiple other SRF members, while denying Lepanto’s reconsideration. The NLRC awarded the additional monetary benefits in accordance with attached computation forms.

Review by the CA and the Parties’ Positions on Appeal

Lepanto then petitioned the CA under Rule 65. In a Decision dated 21 October 2015, the CA sustained the NLRC’s rulings. The CA held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in concluding that Mamaril was not terminated for a just cause. It also held that specified respondents were entitled to overtime pay and that others were entitled to overtime and holiday pay for working beyond eight working hours and on particular holiday dates during the strike period. The CA directed the NLRC Computation and Research Unit (CRU) to compute overtime and holiday pay. The CA denied Lepanto’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration in a Resolution dated 28 June 2016.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming that: first, Mamaril was dismissed without a just and vali

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms