BRISTOL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES, ASSOCIATION-DFA AND RICO G. GATA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BRISTOL LABORATORIES (PHILS.), INC., F.A. MARIAZETA, …

The petitioners in this special civil action for certiorari
and mandamus assail the Resolutions dated March 7, 1989 and April 10,
1989 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-NCR Case No.
00-08-02892­-87, which set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ordered
the latter to receive further evidence.

On June 8, 1983,
petitioner Rico G. Gata was employed by Bristol
Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. (hereinafter referred to
as “the company”) as Territory Manager for the Pangasinan-Baguio area.  In January
1987, he was transferred to the Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur and Abra area.  He was
receiving a monthly salary of P4,750.00.  As territory manager, his job was to promote the company’s specific
product brands by conducting an aggressive promotional campaign.

On March 16, 1987, the company’s Northern Luzon district manager,
F.A. Mariazeta, Jr., reported to the company, through
its Region Sales Manager, P.C. Ong, that Gata had withdrawn stocks, without authority, from two
company customers:  (1) Customer No. 10590 – Farmacia
Carillo in Alaminos, Pangasinan in the amount of P25,603.60 per Invoice No.
619085 dated August 25, 1986 (Exhibits B, C, D and E), for which Gata issued two (2) personal checks which  later bounced; and (2) Customer No. 10661 –
the Dr. Gregorio de Guzman Medical Clinic in San Fabian, Pangasinan,
in the amount of P16,527.50 as per Invoice No. 61959 dated September 18, 1986
(Exhibit 1), for which Gata issued three (3) personal
checks, two of which bounced upon maturity.

Gata was able to replace one of the
checks he issued to Farmacia Carillo
by paying two installments of P5,000 each.

Gata’s immediate supervisor, District
Manager J.L. Atanacio, conducted a separate
investigation on the matter and thereafter submitted a report dated March 20, 1987,
confirming the findings of District Manager Mariazeta,
Jr. Acting on the reports, the company’s Personnel Manager, J.F. Fuentes, Jr.,
issued a memorandum on March 30, 1987 directing Gata
to explain in writing within ten days (or until April 12, 1987) why his
employment should not be terminated for cause in view of the unauthorized
withdrawals.  He was also placed under
preventive suspension for an indefinite period.

Gata made a vague general denial of the
charges against him.

A formal investigation was conducted by the personnel department
on April 29, 1987, during which Gata, represented by
counsel Atty. Nitura and the union president,
Santiago Espino, was confronted with twelve (12)
documents (Annexes 5 to 16 of the written reports) evidencing the unauthorized
stock withdrawals in violation
of the company’s Rules on Conduct With Physicians and its Trade/Outlet Policy
of Stock Withdrawal.  In the face of Gata’s reiterated denials, the company issued a memorandum
dismissing him for serious misconduct and wilful
breach of trust.

On August 19, 1987,
Gata filed in the Ministry of Labor and Employment a
complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, withholding of benefits
and violation of the CBA.  After five (5)
hearings, the Labor Arbiter issued a decision dated July 28, 1988, dismissing
the complaint for lack of merit but nonetheless ordering the payment to Gata of separation pay equivalent to one month for every
year of service, computed at P19,000 (pp. 26-38, Rollo).

Gata and the union appealed to the NLRC
in NCR Case No. 00-08-02892-87.  The
company opposed the appeal, attaching thereto various supporting documentary
evidence.

On March 7, 1989,
the NLRC issued a resolution vacating and/or setting aside the labor arbiter’s
decision and remanding to the labor arbiter the entire records of the case for
reception of evidence and further proceedings, “for proper evaluation of
the evidence adduced in line with the requirements of due process.” (pp. 21-23, Rollo.) The
complainants’ motion for reconsideration of the resolution was denied by the
NLRC on April 10, 1989 (p.
24, Rollo), hence, this petition for certiorari.

Petitioners allege that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion:

1.       in
considering respondent’s unverified opposition to the appeal with the evidence
introduced for the first time on appeal; and

2.       in
remanding the case to the labor arbiter and in not resolving the case on the
merits.

There is no merit in the petition.

The records show that although the respondent-employer failed to
submit a position paper, it was
not declared in default, as no motion to declare it in
default was filed by the petitioners. 
Procedural technicalities do not strictly apply to proceedings before
labor arbiters for they may avail themselves of all reasonable means to
speedily ascertain the facts of a controversy (Art. 221, Labor Code).

No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the NLRC for
having considered additional documentary evidence submitted by the
respondent-employer on appeal, to prove breach of trust and loss of confidence
as bases for the dismissal of the petitioner. 
But even if that additional evidence were to be disregarded, its effect
being merely cumulative inasmuch as the evidence in the records was
sufficient to support the Labor Arbiter’s finding of legal and justifiable
grounds for terminating the employment of petitioner Gata,
it was error for the NLRC to remand the case to the Labor Arbiter for further
proceedings.  It could, and should, have
resolved the appeal on the merits.  In
Columbia Development Corporation vs. MOLE, 146 SCRA 421, where certain balance
sheets and income statements were submitted by the company only on appeal, we
held that they should have been considered by the Minister of Labor “in
keeping with the directive of Art. 221 of the Labor
Code.” The Court reiterated an earlier ruling to the same effect in Haverton
Shipping Ltd. vs. NLRC, 135 SCRA 685.

On the basis of the evidence in the records, the Labor Arbiter
made the following findings of fact:

“Going now to the charge of illegal dismissal, this Office
finds that Complainant was dismissed for justifiable causes and was given the
opportunity to explain and defend his side. 
Respondent BLPI charged Complainant with unauthorized stock withdrawals
on the basis of reports from its two (2) district managers who separately
conducted an investigation.  The reports
contained detailed accounts of the transactions made by the Complainant with
two (2) outlets/customers of Respondent BLPI, which reports clearly convinced
Respondent BLPI that Complainant personally withdrew stocks from said outlets
in violation of company policy.  It appears that under company policy,
products can only be withdrawn from outlets upon prior approval of the National
Sales Manager and to be implemented by the District Manager.  Respondent BLPI, therefore, had a basis for
believing that Complainant is responsible for the misconduct which rendered him
absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.  In several instances, the Court had
sanctioned the dismissal of an employee when ‘the employer has reasonable
grounds to believe, if not to entertain, the moral conviction that the employee
concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his
participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and
confidence demanded by his position.’ (REYES V. ZAMORA 30 SCRA
92; GALSIM V. PNB, 29 SCRA 293; DOLE PHILS V. NLRC, 123 SCRA 673).

“xxx                                      
xxx                                          xxx

“Complainant holds a position of responsibility.  As a territory manager, Complainant has the
responsibility of assisting in the effective distribution of Respondent firm’s products.  Complainant’s position therefore entails the
trust and confidence of his employer and breach of such trust is a justifiable cause
for dismissal.  In
LAMSAN TRADING V. HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR. ET. AL., G.R. No. 73245, September 30, 1986, it was held that:

‘xxx If the private respondents are cashiers, managers,
supervisors, salesmen, or other per­sonnel occupying
positions of responsibility, the requirement that an
employee should enjoy the trust and confidence of his employer may justify
their termination.  (Under­lining
supplied).’

Being the person with whom the
buyers/outlets of Respondent BLPI had to deal with, Complainant’s behaviour in the field has a great bearing on Respondent’s
goodwill and the marketability of its products. 
Thus, Complainant has the primary duty to carry out the policies laid
out by his employer.  It is not difficult
to see that non-compliance with company policies would not only erode
discipline among company personnel but would also adversely affect the
distribution of products of the company.

“It is also seen from the records that Complainant was
afforded due process in accordance with B.P. 130.  Complainant was issued a memorandum requiring
him to explain his side relative to the reported stock withdrawals made by him
and was further subjected to an investigation by the company Personnel
Officer.” (pp. 34-36, Rollo.)

The findings of the Labor Arbiter that the petitioner was
dismissed for a lawful cause with due process are supported by substantial
evidence, hence, they are binding on this Court.  The Labor Arbiter’s order awarding separation
pay to the petitioner is erroneous because one who is dismissed for cause is
not entitled to that benefit.  However,
as the private respondent BLPI did not appeal that decision, it is not entitled
to affirmative relief (American International Underwriters (Phil.), Inc. vs.
CIR, 55 SCRA 227; Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Natividad Vda. de Padilla, G.R.
No. L-54470, May 8, 1990).

WHEREFORE, the
petition is granted.  The Resolution of
the NLRC remanding the case to the labor arbiter for further proceedings is
hereby set aside.  The labor arbiter’s
decision dismissing the complaint is affirmed. 
No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Acting C.J., Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.