Meralco vs Jan Carlo Gala March 7, 2012 GR No.

: 191288 &191304
Facts:
The respondent Jan Carlo Gala commenced employment with the
petitioner Meralco Electric Company (Meralco) as a probationary
lineman. He was assigned at Meralcos Valenzuela Sector. He
initially served as member of the crew of Meralcos Truck No. 1823
supervised by Foreman Narciso Matis. After one month, he joined the
crew of Truck No. 1837 under the supervision of Foreman Raymundo
Zuiga, Sr.
On July 27, 2006, barely four months on the job, Gala was
dismissed for alleged complicity in pilferages of Meralcos
electrical supplies, particularly, for the incident which took place on
May 25, 2006. On that day, Gala and other Meralco workers were
instructed to replace a worn-out electrical pole at the Pacheco
Subdivision in Valenzuela City. Gala and the other linemen were
directed to join Truck No. 1891, under the supervision of Foreman
Nemecio Hipolito.
When they arrived at the worksite, Gala and the other workers saw
that Truck No. 1837, supervised by Zuiga, was already there. The
linemen of Truck No. 1837 were already at work. Gala and the other
members of the crew of Truck No. 1891 were instructed to help in the
digging of a hole for the pole to be installed.
While the Meralco crew was at work, one Noberto Bing Llanes, a nonMeralco employee, arrived. He appeared to be known to the Meralco
foremen as they were seen conversing with him. Llanes boarded the
trucks, without being stopped, and took out what were later found as
electrical supplies. Aside from Gala, the foremen and the other linemen
who were at the worksite when the pilferage happened were later
charged with misconduct and dishonesty for their involvement in the
incident.
Unknown to Gala and the rest of the crew, a Meralco surveillance task
force was monitoring their activities and recording everything with a
Sony video camera. The task force was composed of Joseph Aguilar,
Ariel Dola and Frederick Riano.
Meralco called for an investigation of the incident and asked
Gala to explain. Gala denied involvement in the pilferage,
contending that even if his superiors might have committed a
wrongdoing, he had no participation in what they did. He
claimed that: (1) he was at some distance away from the
trucks when the pilferage happened; (2) he did not have an

inkling that an illegal activity was taking place since his

supervisors were conversing with Llanes, giving him the
impression that they knew him; (3) he did not call the
attention of his superiors because he was not in a position to
do so as he was a mere lineman; and (4) he was just following
instructions in connection with his work and had no control in
the disposition of company supplies and materials. He
maintained that his mere presence at the scene of the incident
was not sufficient to hold him liable as a conspirator.
Despite Galas explanation, Meralco proceeded with the
investigation and eventually terminated his employment on
July 27, 2006. Gala responded by filing an illegal dismissal
complaint against Meralco.
LA-dismissed for lack of merit. Galas participation renders him
unqualified to become a regular employee.
NLRC-Reversed the ruling. Gala had been illegally dismissed since
there was no complete showing of misconduct.
CA;- the CA denied Meralcos petition for lack of merit and partially
granted Galas petition. It concurred with the NLRC that Gala had been
illegally dismissed, a ruling that was supported by the evidence. It
opined that nothing in the records show Galas knowledge of or
complicity in the pilferage. It found insufficient the joint affidavit of the
members of Meralcos task force testifying that Gala and two other
linemen knew Llanes.
Gala would want the petition to be dismissed outright on procedural
grounds, claiming that the Verification and Certification, Secretaries
Certificate and Affidavit of Service accompanying the petition do not
contain the details of the Community Tax Certificates of the affiants,
and that the lawyers who signed the petition failed to indicate their
updated MCLE certificate numbers, in violation of existing rules.
Issue: WON there was procedural defect on the part of
Meralcos contention
Held: The court stress at this point that it is the spirit and intention
of labor legislation that the NLRC and the labor arbiters shall
use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law
or procedure, provided due process is duly observed. In keeping
with this policy and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it
proper to give due course to the petition, especially in view of the

conflict between the findings of the labor arbiter, on the one hand, and
the NLRC and the CA, on the other. As we said in S.S. Ventures
International, Inc. v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union, the application of
technical rules of procedure in labor cases may be relaxed to serve the
demands of substantial justice.
ISSUE: Won there was illegal dismissal?
The court ruled that Gala could not but have knowledge of the pilferage of company
electrical supplies on May 25, 2006; he was complicit in its commission, if not by direct
participation, certainly, by his inaction while it was being perpetrated and by not
reporting the incident to company authorities. Thus, we find substantial evidence to
support the conclusion that Gala does not deserve to remain in Meralcos employ as a
regular employee. He violated his probationary employment agreement, especially the
requirement for him to observe at all times the highest degree of transparency,
selflessness and integrity in the performance of their duties and responsibilities. He failed
to qualify as a regular employee.
For ignoring the evidence in this case, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion
and, in sustaining the NLRC, the CA committed a reversible error.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision
and resolution of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The complaint is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.