ROGELIO O. GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for certiorari challenges the decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission reversing the decision of the Labor
Arbiter which directed petitioner’s reinstatement in respondent company.

The petitioner, Rogelio Garcia, was employed in the Manila
Electric Company since April 22, 1968,
starting as a lineman-trainee until he rose to the
rank of Leadman Grade III, assigned to MERALCO’s North Distribution Division in Valenzuela, Metro
Manila.  His primary function was to
attend to customers’ complaints regarding defective meters and metering
installations.

On November 14, 1985,
at around 10:45 o’clock in the
morning, accompanied by a subordinate, Rogelio Tayag,
he responded to a customer’s complaint (docketed as Complaint No. CR 1-11-1805) of “power
failure” at No. 27 Santiago
St., Navotas,
Metro Manila.  When Garcia pulled
out the electric meter to inspect it, he discovered that one of the screws of
the potential link was missing, indicative of meter-tampering.  A customer found guilty of meter-tampering
would be penalized by a fine of P10,000.  The petitioner informed complainant, Leticia
De Jesus, that the meter would have to be
replaced.  Mrs. De Jesus introduced
herself as the wife of Rodolfo De Jesus, the security supervisor of Eagle Security Agency which guards MERALCO’s Ortigas Office.  She requested Garcia and Tayag
to make the replacement of her electric meter at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of that day when her
husband would have arrived home from work. 
Garcia agreed to accommodate Mrs. De Jesus “considering that her husband is in a way a Meralco man as he is the supervisor of the agency guarding
MERALCO” (p. 13, Rollo).  Nevertheless, he called his home base to
report that De Jesus’ electric meter would have to be replaced.

Garcia and Tayag returned to the De
Jesus house at around 2:30 o’clock
in the afternoon to replace the tampered meter bearing number 33
SUN-92772.  Garcia parked the pick-up
truck and instructed Tayag to install the new meter
bearing number 33-SYN-46293, while he waited inside the truck to guard their
tools.  After the new meter had been installed, power was restored in the De Jesus
residence.  Tayag
informed Garcia that Mrs. De Jesus would like him to come inside her house as
she had other complaints.  However, as soon as he entered the house, a man
approached him and inserted some paper bills inside his hip pocket.  Three men suddenly appeared, grabbed him by
the arms, took the paper bills consisting of five P100 bills from his pants
pocket, and brought him to the office of the MERALCO’s
Patrol Division on Ortigas Avenue for investigation.  The three men were later identified as Kim Laroza, Emilio Diesta and Eddie Banaag, all from the MERALCO Security Inspection
Office.  The five P100 bills bearing
Serial Numbers KL 295608, GT 812431, JY 977041, LC 78585 and AM 787927, were
allegedly paid to Garcia in exchange for his not reporting the tampered meter for laboratory examination or induce
him to conceal it from MERALCO.

An administrative
investigation of Garcia was conducted by Venturado Beran under the supervision of Atty. Pablo Martin of MERALCO’s Legal Department. 
They recommended Garcia’s dismissal from the service, pursuant to the
Code of Employee Discipline, particularly Section 7, paragraph 8 thereof, which
imposes the penalty of dismissal from employment “for dishonesty by
soliciting or receiving money, gift, share, percentage or benefits from any
person, personally or through the mediation of another, to perform an act
prejudicial to the company.” (p. 15, Rollo.) On July
25, 1986, Garcia was dismissed with forfeiture of all benefits and
privileges.

On August
26, 1986, he filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal in the Arbitration Branch of the Department of
Labor and Employment.  At the hearing
before the Labor Arbiter, Leticia De Jesus alleged in her Affidavit that when
Garcia informed her that meter tampering carried a big penalty, she instructed
her nephew, Abelardo Herrera, to ask Garcia what they
could do about the meter defect and Garcia allegedly told her that for P500 he
could take care of the problem by not revealing his findings in his
investigation report to MERALCO; that she requested Garcia and Tayag to return in the afternoon of the same day as she
would first inform her husband about the matter; that her husband was
infuriated to learn that a MERALCO crew was extorting money from his wife, so
he reported the matter to the Patrol Division which dispatched an entrapment
team to arrest Garcia.

On the other hand, in his
Sinumpaang Salaysay, Garcia
alleged that he was framed to cover up his discovery of meter-tampering in De
Jesus’ house.

On May 18,
1988, the Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision finding that Garcia was “framed” and,
declaring that his dismissal was illegal, MERALCO was ordered to reinstate him
to his former or equivalent position with full backwages,
without loss of seniority, plus attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the
judgment.

MERALCO appealed to the
National Labor Relations Commission which reversed the labor arbiter’s decision
and dismissed the complaint. 
Garcia unsuccessfully filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC
decision.  Hence, this
petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in reversing the decision of the labor arbiter.

There is merit in the petition.

What is clear from a
consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this
case, is that the screw of the potential link of the De Jesus’ electric meter
was indeed missing, a sure sign that it had been tampered.  This was established not only by the
petitioner himself but also by his workmate, Tayag.  It was also admitted by Mrs. De Jesus who was
present when the electric meter was pulled out for inspection.  Furthermore, the records show that petitioner
reported the defective meter to his home base, upon its discovery, to justify
its replacement with a new one.  However,
in anticipation of MERALCO’s possible adverse action
against him, the security supervisor
turned the tables on the petitioner by arranging his entrapment for extortion.

The decision of the NLRC
does not reveal sufficient evidence of dishonesty to justify the petitioner’s
dismissal from the service.  Having been
informed by Mrs. De Jesus herself that her husband was the security supervisor
in MERALCO’s Ortigas
office, it would have been suicide for the petitioner to attempt to blackmail
her.  The alleged extortion attempt is
not credible considering that Garcia had in fact already reported the defective
meter to his home base in the morning and obtained a replacement for it in the
afternoon, before the entrapment. 
Besides, Garcia’s subordinate, Tayag, denied
the charge against Garcia.

Petitioner’s right to
security of tenure may not be jeopardized except by clear and convincing
evidence of dishonesty, which the private respondent failed to produce.  A doubtful accusation should not be allowed
to overshadow petitioner’s unblemished record of service for eighteen (18)
years, and the promotions he had received in the course of his employment.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the NLRC is
reversed and that of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated.  The private respondent is ordered to
reinstate the petitioner to his former or equivalent position in the company
with full backwages for a period of three years,
without qualification or deduction, and without loss of seniority rights
(Asphalt and Cement Powers, Inc. vs. Deodegario, G.R.
No. 74563, June 20, 1988; CLLC E.G. Gochangco Workers
Union, et al. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
67258, May 30, 1988).  Costs
against private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco,
and Medialdea,
JJ., concur.