G.R. No. 105763 - Quinones vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Case Summary (G.R. No. 105763)

Factual Background

Petitioners were charged internally after a drinking episode occurred at the FTI detachment on 2 November 1988, during which one of the guards was stabbed by a co-guard. The Labor Arbiter found that, on the evening of November 2, 1988, petitioners were invited by a co-guard to a birthday party. The group allegedly met at the FTI security office and then went to a nearby sari-sari store. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the drinking spree began only at the store. It also noted that all guards in the group were then off-duty.

Afterward, SSAI acted on the basis that petitioners participated in an unauthorized drinking spree at the company premises, and that the incident led to the stabbing of a co-guard. Petitioners were placed on temporary off-detail status after they were charged with drinking within the company premises, and they were eventually terminated effective January 3, 1989.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter

In a decision dated January 11, 1990, the Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal illegal and ordered petitioners’ immediate reinstatement with full back wages. The Labor Arbiter’s ruling relied on its assessment that the drinking started outside the company premises, although the group initially gathered at the FTI security office. It treated petitioners’ participation as not warranting the penalty of dismissal on the factual premise it adopted.

NLRC Proceedings and Reversal

The NLRC, in a decision dated July 19, 1991, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC held that the Labor Arbiter should not have credited petitioners’ testimonial denials and account of the events, because sworn statements of four other participants—Alfredo Perez, Cesar San Andres, Catalino Barcena, Jr., and Joel Balanueco—positively identified petitioners as among those who drank liquor in front of the FTI security office. The NLRC also considered the testimony of Pablito Pornasdoro, a complainant before the Labor Arbiter, who testified that petitioners drank liquor while still within company premises.

The NLRC concluded that, given the admission that the complainants engaged in a drinking session “at company premises on Nov. 2, 1988” and considering that such infraction is punishable by dismissal under the applicable rules, the Labor Arbiter’s findings could not stand. The NLRC later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in an order dated April 15, 1992.

Petitioners’ Arguments in Certiorari

Petitioners contended that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by: first, setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings; second, disregarding petitioners’ testimonies; and third, imposing the penalty of dismissal, even assuming arguendo that petitioners committed the acts charged.

Court’s Assessment of Evidence and NLRC’s Factual Appreciation

The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s evaluation of the evidence. It emphasized that petitioners merely denied the charges and that such denials were treated as weak defenses when not supported by clear and convincing proof. It also highlighted that the NLRC had relied on positive identification by four other participants and on testimony by one complainant before the Labor Arbiter that petitioners drank liquor while still within company premises.

The Court further noted that petitioners themselves admitted that after drinking at the sari-sari store, they entered the company premises to wait for their co-guards at the FTI security office. The Court stated that factual findings of the NLRC receive respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence, invoking Capitol Industrial Construction Groups v. National Labor Relations Commission, 221 SCRA 469 (1993).

The Substantive Issue on Penalty

While the Court sustained the NLRC’s evidentiary evaluation, it agreed with petitioners that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it imposed dismissal. The Court referred to the “Employees’/Guards’ Rules and Regulations Manual for Superstar Security Agency, Inc.”, which defined the offense of drinking alcoholic beverages during office hours or within Agency/Client premises except on authorized occasions and locations, and clarified that being under the influence while at work constituted the same category of misconduct. Under the manual, the offense was punishable by suspension of one to 30 working days for the first offense, with dismissal reserved for the second offense.

Applying that framework, the Court treated petitioners’ act as a first offense, such that suspension, not dismissal, should have been imposed. It relied on Catalan v. Genilo, 209 SCRA 544 (1992), Foodmine, Incorporated (Kentucky Fried Chicken) v. National Labor Relations Commission, 188 SCRA 748 (1990), Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 183 SCRA 451 (1990), and Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 175 SCRA 450 (1989), to support the rule that the penalty must correspond to the number and circumstances of the offense under the agency’s regulations and controlling labor doctrine.

Determination of the Proper Suspension and Back Wages

The Court held that a suspension of 30 days was the commensurate penalty. In setting the duration at 30 days, the Court considered that the drinking session degenerated into a brawl, which ended in the stabbing of a security guard. It underscored the nature of petitioners’ work, since security guards are tasked with maintaining peace and order, and it ruled that their breach of peace should not go unsanctioned.

The Court ordered reinstatement with back wages from the end of the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 105763)

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to challenge an NLRC decision that had set aside the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on illegal dismissal.
The controversy arose from petitioners’ termination from their employment as security guards of Superstar Security Agency, Inc. (SSAI) assigned to the Duty Free Shop at the Food Terminal Inc. (FTI) compound in Bicutan, Paranaque, Metro Manila.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were Lorendo Quinones and Edgar Ibarrientos, both security guards of SSAI.
Respondents were the National Labor Relations Commission, NLRC-NCR First Division, and SSAI.
The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated January 11, 1990, ordered petitioners’ immediate reinstatement with full back wages after declaring their dismissal illegal.
The NLRC, in a decision dated July 19, 1991, reversed the Labor Arbiter and set aside the reinstatement and back wages.
The NLRC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in an order dated April 15, 1992.
The present petition sought certiorari review of the NLRC rulings on both factual appreciation and the imposition of dismissal as the disciplinary sanction.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioners were charged with drinking liquor within company premises, and their assignment context placed them at the FTI compound where they maintained security duties.
After the charge, petitioners were placed on temporary off-detail status.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SSAI on December 15, 1988.
SSAI, through a letter dated January 3, 1989, informed petitioners that their services were terminated as of that date for “serious misconduct” involving a drinking spree on 2 November 1988 that allegedly resulted in the stabbing of one co-guard participant.
The Labor Arbiter accepted the theory that the group met for a birthday party, gathered at the FTI security office, and proceeded to a nearby sari-sari store, and that the drinking spree began only at the store.
The Labor Arbiter treated the guards in the group as off-duty during the drinking session.
NLRC later treated the incident as a punishable violation committed within company premises, based on the sworn statements of other participants and other testimonial evidence.

Evidence and Credibility Issues

Petitioners denied the charges against them, presenting denials as their primary defense.
The Court noted that denials are weak forms of defense, especially when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
NLRC relied on sworn statements of four other participants—Alfredo Perez, Cesar San Andres, Catalino Barcena, Jr., and Joel Balanueco—who positively identified petitioners as having drunk liquor in front of the FTI security office.
NLRC also considered the testimony of Pablito Pornasdoro, a complainant before the Labor Arbiter, who testified that petitioners drank liquor while still within company premises.
Petitioners asserted that NLRC disregarded their testimony, but the Court held that NLRC’s evaluation of the evidence on guilt was supported by substantial evidence.
Petitioners’ own admissions were also treated as significant: Quinones admitted that after drinking liquor at the sari-sari store, they entered the company premises to wait for co-guards at the FTI security office, and Ibarrientos made a similar admission.

Labor Arbiter’s Findings

The Labor Arbiter found that petitioners’ dismissal was illegal and ordered immediate reinstatement with full back wages.
The Labor Arbiter’s factual appreciation rested on petitioners’ account that drinking commenced only after the group left the FTI security office and reached the sari-sari store.
The Labor Arbiter treated the drinking session as arising during a time when the guards were off-duty.

NLRC’s Reversal

NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and concluded that the evidence warranted a finding that petitioners drank liquor at company premises on Nov. 2, 1988.
NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s acceptance of petitioners’ testimonies by crediting the sworn statements of four other participants who positively identified petitioners.
NLRC explicitly relied on the admission embedded in the evidence that the complainants and petitioners engaged in a drinking session at company pr