MANILA PRESS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RICARDO CAJUCOM AND ROGELIO ROLDAN, …

Manila Press versus Inciong

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Manila Press, Incorporated against the Deputy Minister of Labor, the National Labor Relations Commission, and two dismissed employees, Ricardo Cajucom and Rogelio Roldan. The employer asks the Supreme Court to annul the rulings of the labor agencies ordering the reinstatement of the two workers with backwages. The case matters because it draws a sharp line between two employees caught in the same controversy: one whose dismissal the Court sustains because he was convicted of perjury, and one whose dismissal the Court sets aside, not on strict law but on compassion, and without backwages. It is a study in how the Court weighs an employer's right to discipline against the human cost of dismissal.

Procedural History

The labor case began when Manila Press filed with the Ministry of Labor an application for clearance to terminate the employment of the employees involved. The Labor Arbiter, in a decision rendered in July 1977, ordered the reinstatement of Cajucom and Roldan with backwages from October 8, 1975 up to actual reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and other benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed that decision in March 1978. The Deputy Minister of Labor affirmed it again in an order dated September 10, 1979. Manila Press then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, assigning grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the labor agencies.

Facts

On September 24, 1974, Mariano Rodrigo, a laborer of Manila Press, was caught by the security guard carrying ten envelopes as he was leaving the press compound. He was charged with frustrated theft in the city court of Caloocan City and was convicted. To exculpate him, four co-employees, among them Ricardo Cajucom and Rogelio Roldan, executed a joint affidavit dated October 7, 1974, stating that they had witnessed and heard the factory supervisor, Yat Chang Chuan, giving Rodrigo permission to take out the envelopes. The supervisor denied this.

Manila Press then filed a complaint for perjury against the four employees. The city court convicted Cajucom of perjury, and he failed to perfect his appeal, so the judgment against him became final. Roldan and Perucho appealed their conviction, and the Court of Appeals acquitted them on the ground of reasonable doubt in August 1980.

Meanwhile, Manila Press terminated the services of Cajucom and Roldan on October 8, 1975. In June 1976 the two filed a complaint charging illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and nonpayment of sick and vacation leaves. The labor agencies ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages, and Manila Press elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the labor agencies acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of Ricardo Cajucom, who had been convicted of perjury.
• Whether or not the dismissal of Rogelio Roldan, who was acquitted of perjury on reasonable doubt, should be sustained, or whether his reinstatement should be allowed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision; it rests on the settled doctrine that a criminal conviction is not indispensable to warrant dismissal. The Court states the rule in these words:

It is true that conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer.

This principle bears on the case because it means the employer need not await a final criminal judgment before dismissing a worker for misconduct, and it frames the Court's treatment of both employees.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that as to Cajucom the dismissal was proper. The labor agencies acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering his reinstatement. He committed perjury to favor a fellow employee, and he is guilty of misconduct, a point admitted by the Solicitor General. His conviction had become final because he failed to perfect his appeal.

On the second issue, the Court acknowledged that Roldan had been convicted below but ultimately acquitted by the Court of Appeals on reasonable doubt. Roldan pleaded for compassionate justice, describing the poverty of his family and his seven children. While reiterating the rule that a criminal conviction is not indispensable to warrant dismissal, the Court held that, considering Roldan's plea for compassion, the ends of justice would be served by allowing his reinstatement without backwages.

Doctrine

Two rules emerge. First, conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer; misconduct may justify dismissal on its own. Second, where an employee's dismissal is ordered set aside on equitable grounds rather than on a finding that the dismissal was unlawful, the Court may allow reinstatement without backwages, balancing the employer's interest against compassion for the worker. A Bar candidate should tie both rules to the Court's own statement that conviction in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant dismissal.

Disposition

The judgment of the National Labor Relations Commission dismissing Cajucom was affirmed, while the dismissal of Rogelio Roldan was reversed and set aside, and Manila Press was ordered to reinstate Roldan immediately to his former position or any other similar job, without backwages and without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that conviction in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant an employee's dismissal, and remember that reinstatement may be granted on compassion but stripped of backwages. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a dismissal grounded on proven misconduct and one softened by equity, and to ask whether backwages follow reinstatement.