FOODMINE, INCORPORATED (KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) AND NUWHRAIN-KENTUCKY CHAPTER AND REYNALDO L. ESCOLANO, RESPONDENTS.

This petition seeks the
review and reversal of the Decision of respondent National Labor Relations
Commission in NLRC Case No. 10-3492-85 entitled “Nuwhrain-Kentucky Chapter and
Reynaldo L. Escolano v. Foodmine Inc. (Kentucky Fried Chicken)” dated August 16,
1988, which affirmed on appeal the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated
February 26, 1988 declaring private respondent Reynaldo L.
Escolano’s dismissal illegal and ordering the petitioner to reinstate him to
his previous or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and
benefits and to pay him full backwages.

The following background
facts gave rise to the controversy:

Private respondent
Reynaldo Escolano was a regular employee (chopper) of petitioner for
a period of six (6) years at the petitioner’s outlet at the Bonanza Compound, EDSA, Quezon City until his dismissal on September 20, 1985 on the
alleged ground of “hitting the right cheek with his (Escolano) fist and further
grabbing and pulling the ‘left bust’ of a co-employee – Miss Milagros Paz.” (p.
2, Petition)

The incident occurred on September 10, 1985 at about 3:00 p.m.
inside the processing area of the petitioner’s compound. It all started when the employees (about 9)
of them including private respondent Escolano were having their coffee break
when complainant Milagros Paz appeared and approached the group of Escolano bringing with her a labelling gun,
complaining that said instrument has a missing part. Thereafter, she asked Florencio Lobrin (company storekeeper who
was also taking his coffee break) if the instrument can still be repaired to
which the latter answered: “Sino naman
ang nakawala ng goma niyan, inayos ko na ayan kaninang umaga.” (Records, p. 39,
Lobrin’s Affidavit, p. 43 Rollo) In reply, Milagros Paz pointed an accusing finger
at private respondent Reynaldo Escolano after which the latter allegedly
grabbed Milagros left breast and thereafter boxed her.

On October 3, 1985, a
memorandum-letter of even date signed by the administrative manager of
petitioner was served upon Reynaldo Escolano terminating his services on the
strength of the accusation of Milagros Paz. Aggrieved by the management decision, he filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal before the then Ministry of Labor and Employment against petitioner.

After trial, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of
Reynaldo Escolano. The pertinent
portion of the said decision reads –

“We have repeatedly
reviewed the records and we find the preponderance of evidence in favor
of complainant. As already mentioned,
his testimony, unlike that of Milagros Paz, was corroborated by witnesses who
are also employees of respondent; hence, it appear to be more credible. Witnesses Madrilejos and Navarro would not
dare take the witness stand and gave adversarial testimonies against their
employer if they were not telling the truth as they would then unnecessarily
place the security of their very own employment in grave peril.

“It is possible that complainant had touched the breast and face of
Milagros Paz. However, it appeared that
same was accidental and not intentionally done.

“Respondent submitted a xerox copy of a purported medical
certificate. Suffice to say that same
can not be given any consideration in view of the fact that its authenticity
has not been established and also because the certificate was not under
oath. Additionally, even the name of
the supposed physician is not legible.” (p. 45, Rollo)

On appeal, the respondent
Commission affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s
decision.

Hence, this petition
which We find to be patently devoid of merit.

Petitioner claims that it
terminated the services of private respondent because of serious
misconduct.

This claim of petitioner
was found by the Labor Arbiter to be unsubstantiated. This finding was affirmed on appeal by respondent Commission.

In the absence of any
showing that the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not supported
by substantial evidence, such findings are conclusive with this Court. (Unitran/Bachelor Express Inc. v. Olvis, 165
SCRA 254, 256; Reyes v. Phil. Duplicators, 109 SCRA 489)

There is no dispute that fighting on company premises may be
considered as a valid ground for dismissal of an employee but in the case at
bar, the facts do not warrant the application of the same. Firstly, because petitioner has miserably
failed to substantiate its allegations of serious misconduct. Secondly, granting that the allegations of
the petitioner are true, the penalty of dismissal is not commensurate with the
misconduct allegedly committed. Private
respondent had been a regular employee of the petitioner for six (6) years and
apparently, the alleged incident is his first. Finally, the records fail to show that private respondent was afforded
due process before he was summarily dismissed.

ACCORDINGLY, this petition is ordered DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

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

Sarmiento, J., on leave.