PORFIRIO AUXILIO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION AND LOLITA GENOVE, RESPONDENTS.

In the herein petition for certiorari, petitioner seeks
the review of the decision of public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) dated February 12, 1988, which reversed the decision of the
Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB­-1-0048-82, finding as legal and valid the
employer’s act of terminating the services of petitioner and dismissing the
latter’s complaint for illegal dismissal.

The facts of the case are undisputed:

Petitioner Porfirio Auxilio, Jr. was first employed by private
respondent Baguio Country Club Corporation as a houseman in 1977. He became a regular employee in 1978 and in
1981 was assigned as a front desk clerk with a basic pay of P524.00 per
month. He was in charge of hotel rooms,
received guests’ registration and acted as
switchboard operator.

On January 17, 1982, the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos
(P15,000.00), which had been placed in the cashier’s office of the Baguio
Country Club, was found to be missing. The loss was brought to the attention of the management on January 18,
1982. Upon receipt of the report, the
Baguio City Police Department (INP) forthwith conducted a spot
investigation. Police investigation
ruled out signs of forcible entry or robbery, and concluded that it was an
“inside job”. Accordingly, all employees of the
Country Club who had access to the cashier’s office, including the petitioner,
were invited for questioning. All of
them denied having stolen the money. They were then subjected to a Polygraph examination conducted by the
NBI.

Meanwhile, on January 20, 1982, petitioner was placed under
preventive suspension for the usual 30-day period due to his possible
involvement in the theft, pending final result of the investigation.

The results of the Polygraph Examination revealed that petitioner
could not fully explain his answers to vital
questions relative to the missing money. He was again invited to the Police Headquarters for further
investigation but he refused to attend and said that he was not feeling well
when he was under the polygraph examination (Comment of Solicitor General, p.
3). In the polygraph report on the
petitioner dated February 16, 1982, it was declared that petitioner offered no
satisfactory explanation for the adverse result of the polygraph test conducted
on him. All the other employees
subjected to the same examination showed no indications of deception as they
explained their side satisfactorily that they did not steal the money.

Petitioner was asked to appear for investigation by the
management. However, no further examination was conducted by
the police or the employer because
petitioner could not be found in his residence and the notices sent to him were
rejected by his wife.

Thus, in a Memorandum dated February 20, 1982 issued by the
Baguio Country Club Corporation, Porfirio Auxilio, Jr. was terminated for
“loss of trust and confidence” and for “giving false statement
during official investigation.”

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter
alleging that he was dismissed on mere suspicion that he stole the money and
that he was denied an opportunity to defend himself pursuant to the provision
of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between private respondent and the union
of which petitioner was a member.

In a decision
dated October 26, 1984, Labor Arbiter Saturnino P. Orate ordered the
reinstatement of petitioner, finding that there was no reasonable ground in
dismissing the latter because private respondent failed to establish by
preponderance of evidence the legality of the dismissal.

On appeal, the NLRC, on February 12, 1988, set aside the Labor
Arbiter’s decision and entered another dismissing petitioner’s complaint for
illegal dismissal for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner Porfirio
Auxilio, Jr. claims that he was denied due process of law because the
grievance procedure provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was
not strictly observed. He likewise
maintains that with the rejection by the Labor Arbiter of the probative value
of his flight, the Special Investigation Report and Polygraph Report, his
dismissal from employment is not legal.

A review of the records of this case shows that public respondent
did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s
decision.

The Grievance Machinery in the CBA states:

“xxx Sec. 2. A
GRIEVANCE is any controversy by the Union or an employee against the CLUB or
any controversy by the CLUB against the UNION or an employee concerning any
ruling practice or working condition in the CLUB, or any dispute as to the
interpretation of any provisions of this Agreement.” (p. 38, Rollo)

As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General in his Comment,
the instances enumerated where the grievance machinery may be availed of are
not present in this case and that there was no overt act on the part of
petitioner to bring any cause for complaint to the attention of the Immediate
supervisor concerned as prescribed in Step 1 on the Supervisory level. What is truly involved in the case at hand
is the last action pursued by private respondent in the face of overwhelming
evidence found by the police investigators on the theft of its P15,000.00 on
January 17, 1982. The invocation of the
grievance machinery provisions of the CBA is not in place. (Comment, p. 8).

No doubt petitioner was afforded due process of law. There is convincing and sufficient evidence
on record to show that private respondent corporation fully complied with the
notice and hearing requirements of due process. Petitioner was notified
and repeatedly invited for further investigation but he “chose to
ignore” the said notices by his “convenient absence” from his
residence and the continued refusal by his wife to receive the notices
(Memorandum of public respondent, p. 5). Private respondent cannot be faulted as petitioner had ample opportunity
to be heard. Since he unjustifiably
rejected the opportunity, petitioner cannot now complain that he was denied due
process of law.

Petitioner also maintains that his dismissal was without basis as his complicity in
the theft of the P15,000.00 was solely based on suspicions and on the polygraph
test conducted on his person.

“Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an
employee. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
of the employer’s misconduct is not required, it being sufficient that there is
some basis for the same or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe
that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation
therein rendered him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his
position. (Nat’l Org. of Laborers and
Employers vs. MRR, 21 SCRA 191; Nevans v. Court of Industral Relations, 23 SCRA
1321; Galsim v. PNB, 29 SCRA 293; Reyes v. Zamora, 90 SCRA 92; Villadolid v.
Inciong, 121 SCRA 205; San Miguel Corp. v. Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment, G.R. Nos. 61232-33, Dec. 29,
1983)

The job of petitioner is of such nature as to require a
substantial amount of trust and confidence on the part of the employer. He may thus be dismissed on the ground of
loss of trust and confidence. It was established
that petitioner had ready access to the cashier’s office. He admitted having borrowed the nail cutter
of the cashier included among the bunch of keys to the latter’s drawer. The investigations and inquiries conducted
were made on all the employees who had access to the cashier’s drawer and not
on the petitioner alone. However, his
erratic reaction to the investigator’s questioning narrowed down the list of
suspects to him alone. We agree with
the public respondent that petitioner’s continued absence from his residence
and unexplained disappearance despite several notices for further police
investigation implied flight associated with guilt. The requirement that there be some basis or reasonable ground to
believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct is sufficiently met
in the case at bar.

Petitioner’s behavior rendered him unworthy of the trust and
confidence demanded by his position. Considering that an employer is entitled to terminate the services of
employees for just cause and that stealing and other forms of dishonesty have
been held to be sufficient grounds for dismissal, as a measure of
self-protection, private respondent was justified in dismissing
petitioner. Although petitioner’s guilt
was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the totality of the evidence presented
is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of petitioner Porfirio Auxilio, Jr. As held in the case of Filipro, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 145 SCRA 123:

The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes
neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.”

WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.