RUBBERWORLD vs NLRC

G.R. No. 75704 July 19, 1989

MEDIALDEA, J.
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the annulment of the decision of the respondent National Labor
Relations Commission dated June 17, 1!6 "p# $%, Rollo& in NLRC NCR Case No# 6'$15!'!( entitled )Nestor *alabanan and Jonathan
Transmil, Complainants, +ersus Rubber,orld "-hils#&, .nc# and /lpidio 0idalgo, Respondents,) re+ersing the decision of the Labor 1rbiter ,hich
dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit#
The antecedent facts are as follo,s2
Respondent *alabanan ,as emplo3ed b3 petitioner Rubber,orld "-hils#&, .nc# on 4eptember $5,17! as an ordinar3 clerk# .n *a3, 1!5, he
,as promoted to the position of production scheduler ,ith a corresponding salar3 increase# 0e ,as again transferred to the .n+entor3 Control
4ection as stock clerk on 4eptember 1, 1!%#
6n 1pril 6,1!(, /lpidio 0idalgo, the -lant 7eneral *anager of petitioner compan3, recei+ed a cop3 of the 8inancial 1udit Report from the
.nternal 1udit 9epartment of the compan3 sho,ing a significant material +ariance bet,een the 3ear'end actual in+entor3 and that of the Cards
"4C&:/9- Control Records# 1s a result thereof, Noel 4antiago, 4ection 0ead of the .n+entor3 Control 4ection, ,here respondent *alabanan
,as assigned, conducted an in+estigation of the reported discrepancies in the stock cards upon the re;uest of the -lant 7eneral *anager#
4antiago then submitted his report to the general manager recommending the dismissal of respondent *alabanan#
Conse;uentl3, *alabanan<s case ,as endorsed to the 0uman Resources 9i+ision of petitioner compan3, ,hich conducted a rein+estigation on
the matter and ,hich affirmed the recommendation of the .n+entor3 Control 4ection 0ead for the termination of emplo3ment of respondent
*alabanan#
6n June 6, 1!(, respondent *alabanan ,as dismissed b3 petitioner compan3#
6n June 16, 1!(, respondent *alabanan, along ,ith another complainant named Jonathan Transmit, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice
and illegal dismissal against petitioner compan3 alleging that the3 "respondent *alabanan and complainant Transmil& ,ere members of the
monthl3 salaried emplo3ees< union affiliated ,ith T=-14> that petitioner compan3 forced them to disaffiliate from the union> and that due to their
refusal to resign from the union, the3 ,ere ultimatel3 dismissed from emplo3ment b3 petitioner compan3#
-etitioner compan3 on the other hand, denied complainants< allegations and a+erred that respondent *alabanan<s dismissal ,as due to gross
and habitual neglect of his dut3 and not due to his union affiliation#
9uring the hearing of the case, the other complainant, Jonathan Transmil ,ithdre, from the case since he alread3 found another emplo3ment
abroad#
6n Januar3 %5, 1!5, the Labor 1rbiter rendered a decision "pp# 17' $$, Rollo&, the dispositi+e portion of ,hich reads2
?0/R/86R/, premises considered, this case should be, as it is hereb3, 9.4*.44/9, for lack of merit#
46 6R9/R/9#
Respondent *alabanan appealed from the ad+erse decision to the respondent Commission# 6n June 17, 1!6, respondent Commission
re+ersed the appealed decision of the Labor 1rbiter and stated, inter alia2
Confronted ,ith this factual backgrounds, ,e find oursel+es inclined to the +ie, that the appealed decision merits a re+ersal#
@ @ @
?0/R/86R/, premises considered, the appealed decision should be, as it is hereb3 R/A/R4/9# Conse;uentl3, the
respondents are directed to reinstate complainant Nestor *alabanan to his former position as production scheduler, ,ith full
back,ages from the time he ,as illegall3 terminated up to actual reinstatement, ,ithout loss of seniorit3 rights and benefits
appurtenant thereto#
46 6R9/R/9# "pp# $%'$7, Rollo&
The petitioner compan3 mo+ed for a reconsideration on the ground that the respondent Commission<s decision is not in accordance ,ith facts
and e+idence on record# 6n Jul3 $%, 1!6, the said motion for reconsideration ,as denied#
6n 4eptember %, 1!6, petitioner filed the instant petition contending that the respondent Commission committed gra+e abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of Burisdiction in re+ersing the Labor 1rbiter<s decision#
The t,o issues to be resol+ed in the instant case are2 "1& ,hether or not the dismissal of respondent *alabanan is tainted ,ith unfair labor
practice> and "$& ,hether or not a Bust and +alid cause e@ists for the dismissal of pri+ate respondent *alabanan#
-etitioner alleges that the National Labor Relations Commission gra+el3 erred in concluding that the demotion of *alabanan from production
scheduler to a stock clerk at the 4tock and .n+entor3 4ection ,as intended to discourage *alabanan from union membership# .t argued that the
Labor 1rbiter ,as correct in finding that the pri+ate respondent had not sho,n ample proof to the effect that he ,as a member of a labor
organiCation prior to his transfer to another position#
?e belie+e that the foregoing contentions are impressed ,ith merit# 1rt# $(! of the Labor Code, -9 No# (($, as amended, pro+ides2
1rt# $(!# Unfair labor practices of employers. .t shall be unla,ful for an emplo3er to commit an3 of the follo,ing unfair
labor practices2
"a& To interfere ,ith, restrain or coerce emplo3ees in the e@ercise of their right to self'organiCation>
@ @ @
The ;uestion of ,hether an emplo3ee ,as dismissed because of his union acti+ities is essentiall3 a ;uestion of fact as to ,hich the findings of
the administrati+e agenc3 concerned are conclusi+e and binding if supported b3 substantial e+idence# 4ubstantial e+idence has been defined
as such rele+ant e+idence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade;uate to support a conclusion# .t means such e+idence ,hich affords a
substantial basis from ,hich the fact in issue can be reasonabl3 inferred "-hilippine *etal 8oundries, .nc# +# Court of .ndustrial Relations, et# al#,
No# L' %((!'(, *a3 15, 17, 5 4CR1 1%5&# The findings of the Labor 1rbiter on the non'e@istence of unfair labor practice on the part of the
compan3 are more in accord and supported b3 the e+idence submitted b3 the parties in the instant case, to ,it2
Complainant had stated that he ,as a member of the monthl3 salaried emplo3ees union affiliated ,ith T=-14# 0e, ho,e+er,
offered no proof to support his allegation# .n fact, no e+idence ,as presented to pro+e the e@istence of such union# ?e
"noteD from the records that, as the usual practice, in cases like this one, complainant is usuall3 supported b3 the union of
,hich he is a member# 1nd ordinaril3, the union itself is impleaded as a co' complainant# 4uch circumstances, surprisingl3,
EareD not present in this case# .n fact, complainant categoricall3 alleged that he had solicited the ser+ices of the -18L= Labor
=nion in filing this case# .t is, indeed, surprising that complainant had to solicit the help of a labor union "-18L=& of ,hich he
,as not a member instead of soliciting the aid of the labor union "T=-14& of ,hich he ,as allegedl3 a member# These
circumstances alone Edestro3D the credibilit3 of complainant<s allegations# "p# $1, Rollo&#
No,here in the records can ?e find that the compan3 actuall3 performed positi+e acts to restrain the union participation of pri+ate respondent#
8or one, it is doubtful ,hether *alabanan ,as reall3 engaged in the organiCation of a labor union affiliated ,ith the federation T=-14# The onl3
e+idence presented b3 him to pro+e this contention is his affida+it and that of his father# .t is therefore, not in accordance ,ith ordinar3
e@perience and common practice that the pri+ate respondent pursued his battle alone, ,ithout the aid and support of his co'members in the
union and his federation especiall3 in a case of serious nature as this one in+ol+ing compan3 inter+ention ,ith union acti+it3#
1s a rule, it is the prerogati+e of the compan3 to promote, transfer or e+en demote its emplo3ees to other positions ,hen the interests of the
compan3 reasonabl3 demand it# =nless there are instances ,hich directl3 point to interference b3 the compan3 ,ith the emplo3ees< right to
self'organiCation, the transfer of pri+ate respondent should be considered as ,ithin the bounds allo,ed b3 la,# 8urthermore, although pri+ate
respondent ,as transferred to a lo,er position, his original rank and salar3 remained undiminished, ,hich fact ,as not refuted or ;uestioned b3
pri+ate respondent#
.n +ie, of the foregoing conclusions of the Labor 1rbiter, ?e are compelled to agree ,ith the latter that the petitioner compan3 did not commit
an3 unfair labor practice in transferring and thereafter dismissing pri+ate respondent#
The remaining issue to be resol+ed on this point is ,hether the dismissal of respondent *alabanan ,as for a Bust and la,ful cause# 1rticle $!$
of the Labor Code, as amended, pro+ides2
1rticle $!$# Termination by employer# F 1n emplo3er ma3 terminate an emplo3ment for an3 of the follo,ing Bust causes2
@ @ @
b& 7ross and habitual neglect b3 the emplo3ee of his duties>
@ @ @#
-etitioner contends that pri+ate respondent *alabanan ,as guilt3 of gross negligence ,hen he caused the posting of incorrect entries in the
stock card ,ithout counter checking the actual mo+ement status of the items at the ,arehouse, thereb3 resulting into unmanageable
inaccuracies in the data posted in the stock cards# The respondent Commission correctl3 ruled2
-enultimatel3, e+en assuming for the sake of argument that herein complainant <posted entries in the stock card ,ithout
counter checking the actual mo+ement status of the items at the ,arehouse, thereb3 resulting in an inaccurate posting of
data on the stock cards,) to our impression does not constitute as a Bust cause for dismissal# Records sho, that he ,as onl3
transferred to the .n+entor3 Control 4ection on 4eptember 1, 1!% and ,as not so familiar and e@perienced as a stock clerk,
and prior to his transfer, the record sho,s no derogator3 records in terms of his performance# 0is failure to carr3 out
efficientl3 his duties as a stock clerk is not so gross and habitual# .n other ,ords he ,as not notoriousl3 negligent to ,arrant
his se+erance from the ser+ice# Considering that there is nothing on record that sho,s that he ,ilfull3 defied instructions of
his superior ,ith regards to his duties and that he gained personal benefit of the discrepanc3, his dismissal is un,arranted#
"p# $6, Rollo&#
.t does not appear that pri+ate respondent *alabanan is an incorrigible offender or that ,hat he did inflicted serious damage to the compan3 so
much so that his continuance in the ser+ice ,ould be patentl3 inimical to the emplo3er<s interest# 1ssuming, in gratia argumenti that the pri+ate
respondent had indeed committed the said mistakes in the posting of accurate data, this ,as onl3 his first infraction ,ith regard to his duties# .t
,ould thus be cruel and unBust to mete out the drastic penalt3 of dismissal, for it is not proportionate to the gra+it3 of the misdeed#
.n fact, the promotion of the pri+ate respondent from the position of ordinar3 clerk to production scheduler establishes the presumption that his
performance of his ,ork is acceptable to the compan3# The petitioner e+en admitted that it ,as due to hea+3 financial and business re+erses
that the compan3 assigned the pri+ate respondent to the position of 4tock Clerk and not because of his unsatisfactor3 performance as
production scheduler "p# 6, Rollo&# .t has been held that there must be fair and reasonable criteria to be used in selecting emplo3ees to be
dismissed "1sia,orld -ublishing 0ouse, .nc# +# 6ple, No# L'56%!, Jul3 $%, 1!7, 15$ 4CR1 $1&#
.t is ,orth3 to note that the prerogati+e of management to dismiss or la3'off an emplo3ee must be done ,ithout abuse of discretion, for ,hat is
at stake is not onl3 petitioner<s position, but also his means of li+elihood# This is so because the preser+ation of the li+es of the citiCens is a
basic dut3 of the 4tate, more +ital than the peser+ation of corporate profits "/uro'Linea, -hils#, .nc# +# NLRC, L'757!$, 9ecember 1, 1!7,156
4CR1 7&#
The la, regards the ,orker ,ith compassion# 6ur societ3 is a compassionate one# ?here a penalt3 less puniti+e ,ould suffice, ,hate+er
missteps ma3 be committed b3 the ,orker should not be +isited b3 the supreme penalt3 of dismissal# This is not onl3 because of the la,<s
concern for the ,orking man# There is in addition, his famil3 to consider# 1fter all, labor determinations should not onl3 be secundum rationem
but also secundum caritatem "1lmira, et al#, +# G8 7oodrich -hilippines, .nc#, et al#, 7#R# No# L'%(7(, Jul3 $5, 17(, 5! 4CR1 1$5&#
1CC6R9.N7LH, the petition is 9.4*.44/9 for lack of merit# 0o,e+er, the decision of the public respondent is hereb3 *69.8./9 to the effect
that petitioner compan3 is ordered to reinstate pri+ate respondent Nestor *alabanan to the position of stock clerk or substantiall3 e;ui+alent
position, ,ith the same rank and salar3 he is enBo3ing at the time of his termination, ,ith three 3ears back,ages and ,ithout loss of seniorit3
rights and benefits appurtenant thereto#
4hould the reinstatement of the pri+ate respondent as herein ordered be rendered impossible b3 the super+ention of circumstances ,hich
pre+ent the same, the petitioner is further ordered to pa3 pri+ate respondent separation pa3 e;ui+alent to one "1& month<s salar3 for e+er3 3ear
of ser+ice rendered, computed at his last rate of salar3#
46 6R9/R/9#