GERONIMO GATMAITAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal taken by Geronimo
Gatmaitan from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in
Civil Case No. 37098 dismissing his complaint against
the Manila Railroad Company –
hereinafter referred to as the Company – and its officers.

It is not denied that
appellant was employed as Cashier
and Assistant Treasurer of the
Manila Railroad Company for a
good number of years.  On December 11, 1952, upon discovery of the encashment of forged treasury warrants, with a total value of over P400,000.00, appellant was suspended.  However,
on June 30, 1953, pursuant to a
resolution of the Board of Directors and the instructions of the General
Manager, he reported for work as Administrative Assistant
in the Execu­tive Department of the Company.  Subsequently, because Criminal Cases Nos. 22563-65, 22831-33, for estafa thru falsification of public documents, were filed against him in the
Court of First Instance of
Manila, he was again sus­pended effective January 27, 1954.  During his suspension his original position
was abolished.

By reason of the criminal cases mentioned above, the Board of
Directors of the Company, through its Chairman, created a committee of five to
conduct further investigations on the matter.  This only after conducting the re­quired
investigation, found appellant guilty of misconduct, and on December 16, 1955, the Board
of Directors,
in Re­solution No. 814, decreed appellant’s dismissal from the service. 
Notice thereof was given to him in a letter dated December 24 of the same year.

On September 30, 1957,
judgment was rendered in the criminal cases mentioned heretofore acquitting appellant of
the crime, charged on the ground that his guilt had not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. As the Company re­fused to reinstate him, notwithstanding his
acquittal, and to pay him his back wages, appellant commenced the present action on August 5, 1958.  After due trial, the court rendered
the appealed judgment.

In his brief appellant contends that the lower court erred:  firstly, in dismissing the case upon the ground that it was
not filed within one year from the time he was served with notice of his
dismissal, and secondly, in holding that the investigations conducted by the
Company satisfied the requirements of due
process in administrative proceedings.

We shall first take up the second question, for
if the lower court did not
commit this alleged error, there would be no need for Us to consider the first.

As
stated heretofore, because of appellant’s involve­ment in the fraudulent encashment of forged treasury warrants – to the prejudice
of the Company – he was suspended from office on December 11, 1952.  On June 30 of the following year, pursuant to
a resolution
of the Board of Directors and instructions of the General Manager, appellant
was asked to report, end did report, to work but as Administra­tive Assistant in the Executive Department instead of as
Cashier and Assistant Treasurer of the Company.  When he was charged with estafa through falsification of public documents in four
criminal cases, he was suspended anew effective January 27, 1954, and
the Board of Directors of the Company, through its Chairman, created a committee of five members to
conduct a formal investigation in con­nection
with the same matter.  Appellant, assisted by counsel, appeared
before this committee and upon conclusion of the hearings, he submitted to it a
lengthy memorandum.  Thereafter, the committee found him
guilty and, as a result on December 16, 1955 the Board dismissed him from the service.  Upon these facts, it is clear that appellant
was given
full opportunity to be heard and defend himself.

It is true that on
September 30, 1957 appellant was acquitted in the criminal cases mentioned
heretofore, but it is not denied that said acquittal was based merely on reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.  We have heretofore held that conviction in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant
the dismissal of an employee by his em­ployer; it being enough that the latter
had proof of the former’s guilt of breach of trust or other
sufficient reason (National Labor Union vs. Standard etc. 40 O.G. 3503). 
Therefore, appellant having been duly investigated and found guilty of
gross negligence and conduct prejudi­cial to the interest of his employer, We
must necessarily conclude that his conviction in the criminal
actions already mentioned was not indispensable to warrant his dismissal
from the service, nor did his acquittal on reason­able doubt in any way affect the previous
order for his dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from being in
accordance with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Querubin, Calixto, Sanchez, Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, J., on leave.