NELSON G. GOLENA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELEATIONS COMMISSION (3RD DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE LABOR ARBITER ANTONIO MACAM, JNJKONS ENTERPRISES AND MARIJANE C. ISON, RESPO…

Golena versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a labor case about an employee dismissed for dishonesty. Nelson Golena, the Operations Project Manager of JNJKONS Enterprises, a sole proprietorship in the telecommunications business, was terminated after the company concluded that he had taken part in the theft of copper cable wires stored in its Cavite warehouse. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company, its owner Marijane Ison, the Labor Arbiter who heard him, and the National Labor Relations Commission. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules every reviewee must know on serious misconduct, loss of trust and confidence, the substantial evidence standard, the twin notices of due process, and the narrow gate of certiorari against labor tribunals.

Procedural History

Golena filed his complaint for illegal dismissal before Labor Arbiter Antonio Macam. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and upheld the termination, relying on the written statements of Gabriel Cutay and Francis Ricafort pointing to Golena's participation in the theft. Golena appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. He moved for reconsideration, and the Commission denied it, affirming its earlier resolution and the Labor Arbiter's decision. Golena then went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assigning grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Facts

JNJKONS Enterprises was engaged in telecommunications and service provision. Golena served as its Operations Project Manager for the Outside Plant and Integrated Services Departments. He handled the overall technical operations, scheduled manpower, approved requests for materials, handled billing documentation, hired technicians, and implemented projects. He was also entrusted with the custody, handling, care, and protection of company properties. He was, in the words of the decision, the second man in command.

In December 2009, the company received reports that several employees were involved in the theft of company properties, particularly the burning and stealing of copper cable wires stored in its Dasmariñas, Cavite warehouse. On March 15, 2010, the company issued Golena a Notice to Explain and a Notice of Preventive Suspension. An administrative investigation followed on March 19, 23, and 29, 2010. Gabriel Cutay swore that on the night of January 12, 2010, Golena came to the warehouse, said he needed money because he had not received his salary, and instructed him to burn and sell the copper cable wires. When Cutay said he could not do it alone, Golena said his half-brother Reynald Go Ragasa would assist him. Ragasa came the next day and burned the wires, and on January 15, 2010, Cutay went to Golena's house where Golena's wife handed him 2,000 pesos. Cutay also testified that on February 21, 2010, Golena again came to the warehouse, had a drinking session with him and Bobby Escala, warned them not to trust Francis Ricafort, and told Escala to be ready because the group would return for the remaining equipment.

Golena denied the charges in his written explanation and during the investigation. He failed to appear at the March 23, 2010 hearing and presented no witnesses on March 29, 2010. On March 31, 2010, the company issued a Notice of Termination on the grounds of serious misconduct, dishonesty, loss of confidence, and breach of willful trust.

Issues

• Whether or not Golena was illegally dismissed.
• Whether or not there was substantial evidence to support his dismissal for serious misconduct, dishonesty, loss of confidence, and breach of willful trust.
• Whether or not his right to procedural due process was observed.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Applicable Provisions

Article 277(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides:

Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment.

This is the statutory anchor of the twin-notice requirement the Court applies to Golena's due process claim.

Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides:

Section 2. Notice of Dismissal. Any employer who seeks to dismiss a worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for his dismissal. In cases of abandonment of work, the notice shall be served at the worker's last known address.

This is the first notice, the proper charge, which apprises the employee of the particular acts for which dismissal is sought.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that Golena was not illegally dismissed. There was substantial evidence supporting the dismissal. His denial could not prevail over the positive testimony of Gabriel Cutay, who had personal knowledge of the incidents and identified Golena as the perpetrator. The Court held that denial is weak as against positive declarations on affirmative matters.

On the second issue, the Court found that Golena committed serious misconduct, dishonesty, loss of confidence, and breach of willful trust. It defined misconduct as the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implying wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. For serious misconduct to justify dismissal, the Court laid down three requisites:

For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law, (a) it must be serious, (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.

All three were present. The theft of company property was serious, it related directly to his duties over company property, and it made him unfit to continue. As Operations Manager and second man in command, he held a highly sensitive position requiring absolute trust and confidence, and he was entrusted with the custody, handling, care, and protection of company properties. His acts of stealing properties under his care contravened his duties and amounted to loss of confidence and willful breach of trust. The Court stressed that the employer's right to dismiss erring employees is a measure of self-protection, and the employer cannot be compelled to keep the undeserving in its employ.

On the third issue, the Court held that procedural due process was observed. The twin requirements of notice and hearing were complied with. A notice to explain was served specifying the grounds and giving him time to explain. A series of investigations was conducted on March 19, 23, and 29, 2010, and he was duly notified and attended. He offered only denials and presented no witnesses or evidence. The Court explained that the first notice serves to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which dismissal is sought, while the second notice informs him of the employer's decision to dismiss.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. For certiorari to lie, the abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Mere errors of judgment are not correctible by certiorari but by appeal. The factual findings of the Commission affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, both bodies being deemed to have acquired expertise, when sufficiently supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality.

Doctrine

First, serious misconduct justifies dismissal only when it is serious, relates to the performance of the employee's duties, and shows that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. Second, loss of trust and confidence may be a ground for dismissal where the employee holds a position of trust and confidence and commits an act that breaches the trust reposed in him, as where he steals property under his care. Third, denial is weak as against positive declarations of a witness who testified on affirmative matters and identified the employee as the perpetrator. Fourth, the twin requirements of notice and hearing under Article 277(b) of the Labor Code and Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code must both be satisfied: a notice to explain specifying the grounds, and a notice of termination informing the employee of the decision. Fifth, factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding and will not be disturbed by certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the dismissal of Golena was upheld as valid.

Remember This

Memorize the three requisites of serious misconduct and the rule that denial cannot prevail over positive testimony. Examiners use this case to test the substantial evidence standard, the twin-notice requirement, and the narrow scope of certiorari against labor tribunals.