Case Summary (G.R. No. 153690)
The Facts of the Case
Mamaril was employed by Lepanto as a security guard on November 14, 2003, and was a member of the SRF, which consisted of 14 ex-military personnel responsible for special security assignments. Their roles required constant availability, with specific requirements to be on call and to remain on the premises during non-duty hours except for designated rest days. On October 8, 2006, Mamaril was implicated in the theft of skinned copper wires together with a fellow employee, Eliseo Sumibang, leading to his preventive suspension and subsequent dismissal.
Incident Leading to Dismissal
The incident on October 8, 2006, involved the apprehension of Sumibang for theft. Mamaril was accused of opening the man door of the Tubo Collar gate, facilitating the theft, which was based primarily on surveillance reports by fellow guards Arthur Bangkilas and Romeo Velasco. They stated that they witnessed Mamaril open the door while being positioned about 40 meters away in the dark, which raised concerns regarding the validity of their identification of Mamaril.
Legal Proceedings Initiated
After his dismissal for alleged dishonesty and breach of trust, Mamaril filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Lepanto for illegal dismissal and sought various monetary claims including back wages and damages. Other members of the SRF also filed similar claims, indicating a systematic issue with unpaid overtime and other compensations, particularly during a workers’ strike in 2005.
Initial Rulings by NLRC
The Labor Arbiter of the NLRC initially ruled in favor of Lepanto, affirming the validity of Mamaril's dismissal based on claims of lost trust. However, an appeal to the NLRC brought a shift in the decision, with the panel finding Lepanto did not provide sufficient evidence to justify Mamaril’s dismissal. The NLRC ruled he was entitled to separation pay and back wages while also addressing the claims of the other workers regarding unpaid overtime.
Appellate Decision
The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC's reconsideration, emphasizing Lepanto's failure in meeting its burden of proof regarding the just cause for dismissal. The CA found substantial flaws in the testimonies of Bangkilas and Velasco regarding the identification of Mamaril, citing significant distances and inadequate lighting conditions as factors undermining their credibility.
Rationale for the Court's Ruling
In its ruling, the Court reiterated that dismissals based on loss of trust must be grounded in strong evidence establishing intentional misconduct or negligence on the employee
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 153690)
The Case
- This case is a petition for review on certiorari regarding the decision made by the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 21 October 2015 and the resolution dated 28 June 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 116677.
- The petitioner in this case is Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, while the respondents include Maximo C. Mamaril and several others, all former employees of Lepanto.
Facts
- Lepanto hired Maximo C. Mamaril as a security guard on 14 November 2003, assigning him to the Security Reaction Force (SRF), a specialized group of guards required to be on duty 24/7 due to their critical responsibilities.
- The SRF was composed of 14 members, primarily ex-military personnel, who were expected to remain on call and were provided with benefits such as free rice supply, housing, and additional pay.
- On 8 October 2006, Mamaril was allegedly involved in the theft of skinned copper wires along with Eliseo Sumibang, leading to both being placed under preventive suspension.
- A surveillance operation by Lepanto security personnel indicated that Mamaril opened a gate allowing Sumibang to steal the wires, which resulted in Mamaril’s dismissal for alleged qualified theft.
- Mamaril contested his dismissal, filing a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and seeking back wages a