Title
Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin vs. Keihin Philippines Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 171115
Decision Date
Aug 9, 2010
Employee dismissed for taking company packing tape; court ruled act as serious misconduct, upheld termination due to theft, despite minimal value, citing procedural compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234608)

Factual Antecedents

The factual background indicates that Keihin Philippines Corporation had standard protocols for employee searches upon leaving the premises to prevent theft. Valenzuela found packing tape next to her workspace and placed it in her bag, intending to use it for personal reasons related to her moving residence. Upon inspection by a security guard, the packing tape was discovered, leading to her being issued a show-cause notice for violating company policy, which categorized any theft of property as a serious offense warranting dismissal.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Keihin, finding that Valenzuela’s actions fell under serious misconduct as defined in Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Arbiter determined that the company had provided sufficient procedural due process, which included a notice informing Valenzuela of the charges and allowing her an opportunity to respond. The Arbiter found that the dismissal was justified under just causes established by law, particularly given the context of ongoing theft issues within the company.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

On appeal, the NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision. It emphasized that Valenzuela had admitted to taking the packing tape, which constituted valid grounds for dismissal. The NLRC also confirmed that procedural due process had been observed, as Valenzuela was given written notice of the infractions and an opportunity to explain her side of the story.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals dismissed a subsequent petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners, citing a failure to include Valenzuela as a party in interest in the legal proceedings. This omission was critical as per the Rules of Court, which require all indispensable parties to be joined in any action. The appellate court found that the petition lacked the necessary components to proceed and did not delve into the merits of the case due to these procedural deficiencies.

Supreme Court Ruling

In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court noted the technical defects in the petition filed by the union, specifically the omission of Valenzuela's name, which undermined the case's merits. The Supreme Court further elaborated on the definitions of misconduct, emphasizing that serious misconduct requires a determination of intent and wrongdoing, which the circumst

...continue reading

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