JOSE A. IBARRIENTOS, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER BIENVENIDO V. HERMOGENES & INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (IBC), RESPONDE…

The petitioner was a driver of one of the service vehicles of the respondent International Broadcasting
Corporation (or IBC), receiving a salary of P1,162 per
month exclusive of allowances.

Prior to March 31, 1983,
he was found guilty of having circulated fake meal tickets in the company, acts
of dishonesty which should have caused his dismissal, but heeding his and his
union’s pleas for clemency, the IBC decided to simply suspend him for thirty
(30) days effective April 4, 1983
or up to May 4, 1983 (p. 88, Rollo).

However, even before he could begin to serve his penalty of suspension, he again committed an infraction
of company rules on March 31, 1983 when, according to the report of the
Motorpool Dispatcher, Reynaldo Demetillo, at eight o’clock in the morning of March 31, 1983, Maundy Thursday,
Ibarrientos took out the company’s service vehicle, without Demetillo’s
permission, and was out all day.  He
returned the motor vehicle at 7:15 P.M.  When
he was asked by Demetillo why he used the vehicle, he replied that he went to Marikina “for a personal trip in visiting his relative and had some
drinking spree the whole day there.” He resented Demetillo’s questioning
him about his trip.  “He burst into
anger,” “was shouting mad with indecent words” and “made a
motion to assault” Demetillo and challenged him to a fistfight.”
Fortunately, the guard at the exit gate intervened.  Later in the evening, after the studio’s
sign-off time, he refused to drive home the company nurse, Mrs. Purificacion
Cotoner.  The Security Manager
volunteered to have the nurse brought home by a security driver using another
vehicle.  Furthermore, although he was
supposed to be on overtime duty up to 6:00 A.M. the next day, he took off that
same evening on his motorcycle, so that
Demetillo was “forced to stay for possible emergency operations within the
Networks” that night (pp. 86-87, Rollo).

Demetillo’s report was corroborated by the Shift Security
Supervisor, Joven L. Pantoja.  (p. 87, Rollo).

The petitioner was ordered to submit a written explanation of the
following charges against him:

1. Abandonment of work.

2. Unauthorized use of company vehicle.

3. Drunkenness while on duty.

4. Insubordination.

5. Challenging his Superior
to a fistfight.

After he had given his explanation, he
was discharged on May 24, 1983.  He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter, after hearing the parties, found:  “that there exist valid causes to impose
the penalty of dismissal on complainant. 
x x x We
also notice that persons having personal knowledge of the different charges raised by respondent against
complainant testified and affirmed the contents of their sworn testimony.  The
causes of dismissal must have been seen by the labor union to (sic) which
complainant is a member, as valid that it elected not to be heard on the matter
anymore.” (p. 30, Rollo.)

The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s decision reads:

“Premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered dismissing the charge of illegal dismissal for lack of merit.  As regards the money claims, respondent is
hereby ordered to pay complainant his earned and worked for salary of P2,046.60 and overtime pay of P2,046.60 for March 1983, after
deducting the advances received from the Company and the loan from the provident
fund.” (p. 31, Rollo.)

However, on appeal by both parties to the NLRC, the monetary
awards to Ibarrientos were set aside, but his dismissal was upheld (p. 32,
Rollo).

After deliberating on the petition, the issues and arguments
raised by the parties, We find no grave abuse of
discretion in the NLRC’s decision
dismissing the complaint and setting aside the monetary award to the
petitioner, for there were just causes for his dismissal and that finding was
supported by substantial evidence.

The petitioner was accorded due process.  He was notified of the charges against him
and given an opportunity to explain them in writing.  Only after he had submitted his explanation
(evidently unsatisfactory from the point of view of his employer) did the IBC
decide to terminate his services.

His money claims for unpaid salary of
P2,046.60 and overtime pay of P2,046.60 for March 1983
were properly dismissed for he admitted that his last monthly salary was only
P1,162.00, not P2,046.60.  His salary and
overtime pay for March 1983 amounted to P2,324.00
only.  Since he was indebted to the
company for P1,879.90 which it advanced to pay his
income tax, and he had borrowed P1,021.40 from the provident fund (total:  P2,901.30), there is nothing due him from the
company.  On the contrary, he still owes the company
P577.30.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.  Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.