INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD AND VENEER CO. OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY MINISTER, MINISTRY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT AND SATURNINO…

The June 11, 1981 order
of the Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor and Employment, which directed the
reinstatement with backwages of private respondent Saturnino Atentar, is
challenged in this petition as having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.

Saturnino Atentar started
working for International Hardwood and Veneer Company of the Philippines (Interwood) on March 23, 1975 as a road construction laborer.  On March 17, 1976, he was promoted to motor banca helper
assigned to operate motor bancas at the Interwood log pond in Barrio Sabang,
Mauban, Quezon.  He was also given
confidential assignments to assist a team of company security personnel and
Philippine constabulary soldiers patrolling the area to curb the smuggling of
illegally cut logs from the petitioner’s forest con­cessions.

On November 21, 1977, the petitioner applied for clearance to
terminate the services of Mr. Atentar (with two other employees) for serious
offenses and violation of company rules and regulations including (a) the use
of company property for personal use and
gain without authority; (b) dishonesty; (c) serious misconduct; and (d) fraud
and wilfull breach of trust.

On July 11, 1979,
the Regional Director of the Ministry of Labor and Employment issued an order,
the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, respondent is
hereby ordered to reinstate complainant immediately with full backwages from August 8, 1978 when the complaint was
filed up to actual date of reinstatement. 
Consequently, the application for clearance for his termination is
hereby Denied. 
As regards the other charges particularly non-payment of 13th month pay
and accrued sick leaves, the records showed that the company is exempt from
complying with PD 851 only for 1977.  It
is therefore liable for the years 1975 and 1976, hence, it is hereby ordered to
pay the 13th month pay of complainant for these years.  On the other hand, the claim for accrued
vacation leave is hereby dismissed it having been shown that the same has
already been paid.”

Acting on an appeal filed
by Interwood, the Deputy Minister of labor issued on June 11,
1981 the order now
challenged in this petition.  The disposi­tive
portion reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Order of this Office dated 27 February 1981 is hereby affirmed
subject to the modi­fication that the respondent is de­clared exempted from
paying the complainant of the 13th month pay for 1975 and 1976.”

The grounds for the
petitioner’s application for clearance are summarized in the order of the
Regional Director as follows:

“The records show that applicant company
anchored the charge of using company property for personal use on the
statements of Roden Laureles, a former security guard until June 1977, to the
effect that he had seen complainant herein using the company boat.  There was no declaration by said affiant
however, whether he has knowledge of whether complainant did not secure a prior
permission and authority, when the latter used the boat or whether the purpose
for which it was used was personal in nature or for the benefit of the
company.  These are the more significant
questions that have not been clarified by the respondent company in throwing
the accusations against complainant herein.

“On the charge of
dishonesty, the respondent alleged that complainant herein was
apprehended while in the act of towing a piece of log from its log pond to
Mauban Insular Sawmill, which is in violation of the company’s rules and
regulations on theft or appropriation of company property.  In support of this accusation, the company
submitted the affidavit of Reynaldo Manuba dated September 23, 1978, another banca operator of the company.

“And for the last two
grounds which are serious misconduct and fraud or wilfull breach of trust
apparently, the company has as its basis the participation and collusion by
complainant herein and Oscar Joven, a log scaler in doubly scaling logs thereby
doubly charging the company and sharing the proceeds therefrom between
them.  Thus, the charge
of serious misconduct, breach of trust and fraud which infrac­tions were also
touched by Manuba and Laureles in their declarations.”

This petition may be
resolved on the issue of dishonesty alone.

Atentar was a motor banca
operator assigned to the Mauban log pond of Interwood.  He was given, in addition to his regular
duties, the confidential assignment of helping an anti-smuggling team of
security personnel patrol the environs of the company log pond.  Atentar was caught in the very act he was
supposed to curb or guard against. 
Security personnel apprehended Atentar while he was towing a pilfered
log from the Interwood log pond to the Mauban Insular Sawmill.

There is no question that
the theft of logs by an employee who operates the motor bancas used in towing
those logs and who is given the extra assignment of helping security personnel
patrol the waters in and around the log pond against log thieves is valid
reason for dismissal by his employer. 
The act of pilferage violated both Article 283 of the Labor Code and the
employer’s company rules and regulations, which provide:

“‘ART. 283 – Termination by employer
– An employer may terminate an employment without a definite period for any of
the following just causes:

“(a)    xxxx

“(b)    serious
misconduct or wilful disobedience by the employee of the orders of his employer
or representative in connection with his work;

“(c)    xxxx

“(d)    fraud
or wilful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
representative;

“(e)    xxxx

“(f)     other
causes analogous to the foregoing.

“‘RULE II – THEFT OR APPROPRIATION OF COMPANY PROPERTY – Do not take out or appropriate for your own
use any company property, material, record or equipment without written
permission or consent of the proper authority. 
Violation of this rule will subject the guilty party to immediate
dismissal and criminal prosecution.'”

It is an established
principle that an employer cannot be compelled to continue in employment an employee
guilty of acts inimical to the interest of the employer and justifying loss of
confidence in him.  (Manila
Trading and Supply Co. v. Manila Trading Laborer’s Association, 83 Phil. 297;
Galsim v. Philippine National Bank, 29 SCRA 293; PECO v. PECO Employees Union,
107 Phil. 1003; Nevans v. Court of Industrial Relations, 23 SCRA 1321; Gas
Corporation of the Philippines v. Inciong, 93 SCRA 652.)

The respondents argue
that Interwood failed to submit the required quantum of evidence to support its
application for clearance to terminate the private respondent’s
employment.  The respondents’ principal
contention is that this Court’s corrective powers do not go so far as to
evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the Deputy Minister and the
Region­al Director based their determinations but are limited to issues of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. 
(Scott v. Inciong, 68 SCRA 473; San Miguel Corporation
v. Secretary of Labor, 64 SCRA 56).

The findings of
administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.  This is especially true of determinations
made by the Ministry of Labor and Employment which implements not only statutory
functions and duties but the constitutional mandate to the State to afford
protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure
equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the
relations between workers and employers and to assure the rights of workers to
self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and
humane conditions of work.  (Article II,
Section 9, Constitution).

Our respect for the findings and conclusions of the Ministry of
Labor and Employment and our according them a measure of finality are, however,
subject to well-known exceptions which
we reiterate because of the number of adjudications of the labor ministry and
labor tribunals elevated to us for review. 
Where there has been a failure to correctly interpret and apply the
provisions of law applicable to the facts of a particular case or where factual
findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or where there is grave
abuse of discretion or want or excess of jurisdiction, we assert our power to
review and set aside.

The private respondent in
this case was caught red-handed towing a stolen log with one of the motor
bancas he operates from the employer’s log pond to a local sawmill.  The respondent labor officials found the
affidavits of security guard Roden Laureles and banca operator Reynaldo Manuba
as non-substantial or insufficient to sustain the acts of dishonesty and wilful
breach of trust because they were executed only on September 8, 1978 whereas the dismissals were effected on November
21, 1977.  They, therefore, discredited the
affidavits.  The public respondents
overlooked the fact that the affidavits (the Ministry of Labor and Employment
relies heavily on affidavits and counter-affidavits for its determinations)
refer to acts com­mitted before November 21, 1977.

The records show that the
police blotter at the Mauban Police Station has the following entry at page
166, series of 1977, line No. 28, dated September
10, 1977:

‘ T H E F T ‘

Suspect        :  Saturnino Atentar – motor operator

(Interwood Sawmill)

Complainant 
:  Interwood Sawmill
(Management)

Subject          :  One log coming from logpond of Interwood
Sawmill

Place & Date : Interwood Compound 10 Sept. ’77

Time              : 
At 9:00 P.M. more or less

Remarks       : 
Said Suspect apprehend one Security Guard,
Reynaldo Manuba.”

The affidavits were
executed because of the com­plaint filed by respondent Saturnino Atentar with
the Regional Office at San Pablo
City of the Ministry of Labor and Employment.  Naturally, the affidavits could not have been
executed in 1977 simultaneously with the acts described in the affidavits as
the need for them arose only a year later.

The dismissal of a dishonest employee is as much in the interests
of labor as it is of management.  The
labor force in any company is protected and the workers’ security of tenure
strengthened when pilferage of equipment, goods, and products which endangers
the viability of an employer and, therefore, the workers’ continued employment
is minimized or eliminated and consequently labor-management relations based on
mutual trust and confidence are promoted.

There are other issues raised in this petition including the
alleged abolition of jobs at the Mauban, Quezon operations of Interwood because
of President Marcos’ orders to stop logging operations in the area but there is
no need to pass upon them.

WHEREFORE, the order dated June 11, 1981 of the Deputy
Minister of Labor and Employment and the order dated July 11, 1979 of the
Regional Director of Region IV-A of the Ministry of Labor and Employment are
hereby set aside.  The respondent public
officials are directed to issue the clearance to terminate the services of the
private respondent.  The restraining
order issued on October 26, 1981
is made permanent.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Acting Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, and Relova, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), on
official leave.