ANTONIO R. ARONGAY, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY AND NAPOLEON NAZARENO, RESPONDENTS.

Arongay versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a labor case. Antonio Arongay, a Cable Splicer who had served the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company for more than three decades, was dismissed from service after the company found him responsible for cutting and stealing portions of its new cable wires stored at the Grace Park Service Yard. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims before the Labor Arbiter, lost, and brought the matter up to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari. The case matters because it fixes the dividing line between two standards of proof: the employer need not prove theft beyond reasonable doubt, only by substantial evidence, and it settles that a long, unblemished record of service cannot outweigh a single proven act of serious misconduct and fraud.

Procedural History

Arongay filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, praying for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. In a Decision dated 23 July 2013, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the Complaint. Arongay then went to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision in a Resolution dated 30 October 2013, and denied his Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated 28 January 2014. Arongay then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission.

Facts

On 18 December 1979, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company employed Arongay as a Cable Splicer. On 2 April 2010, Arongay called Security Guard Ferdinand Buenavista, stationed at Gate 2 of the yard, and told him of a plan to steal reels of cable wires, saying this was customarily acceded to by other security guards. Buenavista agreed and exchanged posts with Security Guard Emmanuel De Jesus. Arongay was then allowed entry at Gate 2 with three unidentified persons, and he cut cable wires, approximately nine meters of 1500 pairs and 26 meters of 2100 pairs.

Security Guard Rolando Rosas noticed Buenavista acting suspiciously and followed him, and was led to Arongay, under whose feet he saw cut cable wires. Buenavista said, "Pare ngayon lang naman ito, kelangang kelangan lang, at atin atin nalang ito." Rosas replied, "Bahala kayo," and left. Arongay loaded the cut wires aboard a company vehicle and fled, handing Buenavista 2,500 pesos and De Jesus 2,000 pesos for their cooperation. Buenavista later offered Rosas 500 pesos, which Rosas refused, and Rosas reported the incident to the commander on duty.

The company asked Arongay to explain. He denied the accusations, insisted he was in Manaoag, Pangasinan at the time, presented affidavits of three disinterested residents of that municipality, and claimed Buenavista had reason to fabricate charges because he had earlier refused Buenavista a loan of 2,500 pesos. The company nonetheless dismissed him for serious misconduct and fraud, and theft or misappropriation of company property.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the Labor Arbiter's Decision without substantial evidence to validly dismiss the petitioner.
• Whether or not the private respondent company had substantial evidence to legally terminate the petitioner, given that the charge rested on the allegations of the security guards.

Applicable Provisions

Article 282 of the Labor Code provides:

Article 282. Termination by Employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious Misconduct or willful Disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.

These are the just causes invoked by the company, and the Court measures the evidence against their elements: misconduct that is serious, and fraud or willful breach of trust.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, when sufficiently supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality, and are binding on the Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that just cause existed for dismissing the petitioner for serious misconduct and fraud, theft and misappropriation of company property. The burden of proving a just cause for termination lies on the employer, who must affirmatively show adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. But the proof required is not that of a criminal case. The Court ruled that substantial evidence does not call for the same degree of proof needed in criminal cases, and is satisfied although the evidence is not overwhelming, for as long as there is reasonable ground to believe that the person charged is guilty of the act complained of.

The Court relied on several telling facts: the written statement of Buenavista admitting he connived with the petitioner; the sworn statement of Rosas attesting that he witnessed the theft at the yard; the corroboration by De Jesus, who professed that the petitioner used a company vehicle although he was not on duty and passed Gate 2 without a gate pass; the confirmation by Section Supervisor Richard Quiambao that cable wires were indeed missing from the reels; and the attestation of Outside Plant Section Supervisor Edgardo Nofuente that he issues gate passes and that the petitioner had none. These categorical statements carried conviction over the petitioner's bare denial and alibi.

On the petitioner's long service, the Court was blunt: his 32 years without a taint of misdemeanor pales into insignificance when juxtaposed with the clear finding, supported by evidence, that he was guilty of serious misconduct and fraud against the company. Length of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. The Court also affirmed the employer's right to discharge an employee for just causes, concomitant to its right to freely select and engage employees, and held that the company cannot be compelled to retain in its employ one found guilty of acts inimical to its interests.

Doctrine

First, the employer bears the burden of proving a just cause for termination, but the quantum is only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Second, serious misconduct under Article 282(a) means improper and wrongful conduct, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, willful in character, implying wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment, and the law is explicit that the misconduct should be serious. Third, fraud under Article 282(c) comprises anything calculated to deceive, including acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another. Fourth, length of service is not a bargaining chip that can be stacked against the employer. Fifth, factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court.

Disposition

The Petition for Certiorari was dismissed; the company won, and Arongay's dismissal from service was upheld as valid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: length of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. Examiners use this case to test the substantial evidence standard in labor dismissals and the elements of serious misconduct and fraud under Article 282.