BONIFACIO DE LEON, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SUGAR PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., ALFREDO U. BENEDICTO AND GWENDOLYN H. GUSTILO, R…

Before Us is the Motion of private
respondents for reconsideration of Our decision of October 30, 1980 which ordered the reinstatement
of petitioner with full backwages.

In support of the said motion for reconsideration, the following
were alleged:

1.    There was no clear denial of due process
because what the auditors did was merely to conduct a preliminary review of the
records to ascertain whether there were anomalies.

2.    Upon being informed by the au­ditors of the
anomalies involving the petitioner, Mr.
Benedicto privately confronted the petitioner about those
anomalies preparatory to a formal in­vestigation where he could be heard, but
instead of going through with the investigation, the petitioner agreed to avail of the company’s retrench­ment
program going on at that time and collect, in connection therewith, his retirement benefits in full.

3.    Even assuming arguendo that there
“was denial of due process”, petitioner’s
severance from the company was nonetheless legal and proper because:  (a) being a managerial employee, the petitioner could be ter­minated
for mere lack of confidence and (b) the petitioner was legally retrenched.

We observe that no new matters were raised
herein which would warrant a reconsideration, since the issues adduced above
were already considered and thoroughly discussed in the assailed decision.  There are no com­pelling reasons shown to
warrant disturbing the findings of the Labor Arbiter, and to merit a reconsideration as prayed for.

As We have previously pointed out, the
Commission failed to clearly establish by substantial evidence the involvement
of petitioner with the alleged anomalies. 
A mere generalized
statement “that the evidence collated by the team of auditors established
the involvement of Appellee [petitioner] in the above-said irregularities.  xxx” will
not suffice to hold petitioner liable as charged.

If petitioner voluntarily retired from the service, it would be
strange for him to thereafter file a com­plaint for illegal dismissal.  What would be more con­sistent with normal
human behavior, if retirement was not forced upon him, is for him to have, at least, expressed some words of gratitude to private respondents,
considering that he had work with them for more than twenty (20) years.

WHEREFORE, the
motion for reconsideration is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.