MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JIMMY MEGINO, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for certiorari seeks to review the decision
of respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC for short) dated July
26, 1989 in NLRC Case No. 7-2901-86 entitled, “Jimmy A. Megino v. Manila Electric Company,” ordering the
reinstatement of private respondent Jimmy Megino,
thereby reversing the order dated June 28, 1988 of Labor Arbiter Quintin C. Mendoza who found that Megino
was dismissed for cause.

Megino was employed as a teller of the
petitioner, Manila Electric Company (MERALCO for short), at its San Pedro
Branch Office, in San Pedro, Laguna.  His
job was to collect and/or receive electric bill payments from Meralco’s customers and to remit the same to the company
before the end of each day (p. 5, Rollo).

On December 2, 1985,
Megino was placed under preventive suspension pending
the results of an administrative investigation of his unremitted
collections amounting to P1,864.89 as of September 10, 1985, and for his
delayed/withheld remittances in the total amount of P3,763.51.  On December
14, 1985, Megino, assisted by a Union representative, Juanito Rivera, appeared at the administrative
investigation conducted by officers of the company (p. 7, Rollo).

While the administrative investigation was pending, petitioner’s
auditors proceeded with their task of ascertaining the extent of Megino’s shortage (p. 7, Rollo).

Megino admitted having collected the
sums of P1,864.89 and P3,763.51 but imputed to Myle Calayag (a former bill collector of the company’s San Pedro
Branch Office, who had earlier been dismissed for dishonesty) his failure to
remit the funds (p. 7, Rollo).

Having been found guilty as charged, Megino
was dismissed on February 12, 1986.

On April 10, 1986,
Myle Calayag came forward
with an admission that he was responsible for the anomalies imputed to Megino (p. 101, Rollo).  Myle Calayag declared that:

“Q: 
As per Audit Report No. 85-046 dated Nov. 27, 1985, it appears that Mr. Megino
failed to remit the amount of P1,864.89.  Having assisted Mr. Megino
on several occasions in the preparation of stubs and collection lists as well as
taping, do you know of any reason why this amount was not remitted?

“A:   Kasi kapag ako
ang nagtatape niyan ng stub ni Megino, pinapalitan ko ang ibang stub niya sa mga
stub ko.

“Q: 
I am showing to you the unremitted
collections, will you please look over the same and confirm or tell whether or
not these are the bills which you said were replaced by you such that the
amount of P1,864.89 was not remitted?

“A:   Maaring ito na
nga at meron pang iba.

“Q: 
I am likewise showing to you a separate list of account collected during
the month of July, 1985 but was remitted only on August 1985 or a span of one
month or more, will you please go over the same and state the cause, if you
know why there was a withholding?

“A:   Ang ginagawa ko
dito, pinapali­tan ko ang stub na
bago at papasok ko ang lumang stub para hindi maging outstanding, kayat nagkakaroon ng one month or less na
delay.  Sa pagpapaliwanag pa, ang ibig kong sabihin
doon sa lumang
stub ay iyong mga stubs na nakuha ko
noon nakaraang
buwan at saka ko lang ipapasok
kapalit ng bago para hindi
ma omision.

“Q: 
On the basis of your answers are we made to understand that you
personally cause the delay in the remittances of these lists shown to you
through the technics which you have just stated?

“A:   Yes, sir.” (pp.
154-155, Rollo.)

On April 28, 1986, petitioner’s audit team rendered a Final Audit
Report No. 86-012 disclosing that over
the years Megino had in fact misappropriated the
total sum of P63,967.15 (p. 8, Rollo).

On July 16, 1986,
Meralco denied Megino’s
request for reconsideration of the order for his dismissal from the
company.  It held that he violated the
company’s Code of Employee Discipline, particularly Section 7, paragraph 1, by
“misappropriating or withholding Company funds,” the penalty for which
is dismissal from the service (p. 10, Rollo).

On July 23, 1986,
Megino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Meralco.  It was docketed as NLRC Case No. NCR-7-2901-86 (pp. 100-101, Rollo).  On June
28, 1988, Labor Arbiter Quintin C.
Mendoza dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.  The Labor Arbiter pointed out:

“Noteworthy is the fact that with respect to these charges, he
was given all the opportunity to defend and absolve himself.  As a matter of fact, in every investigation
that took place against him, he was given the full opportunity to explain his
side and was shown the different derogatory reports and exhibits against him
and for all those investigations he was assisted by a representative of the
MERALCO Employees and Workers Association (MEWA) to (sic) which he is a
member.  Indeed, from the text of the
investigation reports – even if he insists on being innocent, he cannot absolve
himself from the implication of the charges and for that reason, nobody
including this Official can blame respondent for having withdrawn its trust and
confidence on (sic) the complainant, and for having dismissed him on that basis
which is a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Code.

“For all the foregoing reasons, decision is hereby issued
dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.

“SO ORDERED.” (pp.
102-103, Rollo.)

Megino appealed to the NLRC which
reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, reasoning that:

“x x x.  We hold that
complainant was illegally dismissed since there was no factual and legal basis
for his dismissal.  An employee cannot be
deprived of his employment without just cause. 
We should be slow in disturbing or cutting down the tenurial
security of employees which is protected by the law and the
Constitution.”  (pp.
32-33, Rollo.)

The NLRC ordered Meralco:

“1.   x x
x to reinstate complainant [Megino]
to his former position, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
from the time of his dismissal on February 12, 1986 with three (3) years backwages without qualification or deduction.

“2.   x x
x to pay complainant his salary and other benefits in
excess of the thirty (30) days period of preventive suspension from January 2,
1986 up to February 11, 1986.” (p. 34, Rollo.)

The NLRC denied Meralco’s motion for reconsideration (p. 35, Rollo).  Hence, this
petition for certiorari and prohibition alleging that the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing the
decision of the Labor Arbiter and in holding that Megino
was illegally dismissed.

The central issue is whether Megino’s
infractions of the Code of Discipline were sufficient grounds for terminating his employment for loss of
confidence or breach of trust.

We find merit in the petition.

Article 282 of the Labor Code provides:

“Art. 282.  Termination
by employer.  – An employer
may terminate an employment for any of the following just causes:

“(a) 
Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

“xxx        xxx       xxx

“(c) 
Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in
him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

“xxx        xxx       xxx.”

Myle Calayag’s
admission that he authored the misappropriation of company
funds did not relieve Megino as custodian of the
funds, of liability for the defalcation, for it was he, not Calayag,
who was accountable for them.  It appears
that he connived and conspired with Calayag to steal his collections.  Calayag prepared
the collection list and validation tapes,
which enabled Megino to secrete the funds in his
possession.  Megino
occupied a very sensitive position which required a high degree of honesty and
trust­worthiness (p. 187, Rollo).  His acts of dishonesty justified the
company’s loss of trust and confidence in him and his consequent discharge.

In Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v.
Court of Appeals (1 SCRA 1251), we held that where an employee occupies a
position of trust and confidence, as where he is entrusted with confidential or
delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the
employer’s property, acts tending to show unworthiness may constitute a just
cause for dismissal, or loss of employer’s confidence.

It is fairly well settled in this jurisdiction that, for loss of
trust and confidence to constitute a just
and valid cause for an employee’s dismissal, proof beyond reasonable doubt of
the latter’s commission of irregularities is not needed.  It is sufficient that there be 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 renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded of his position (Reyes v. Zamora, 90 SCRA 92).

“Similarly, we stated in Nevans v.
Court of Industrial Relations (23 SCRA 1321):

“‘Loss of confidence
is a valid ground for dismissing an employee and proof beyond reasonable
doubt of the employee’s misconduct – apparently demanded
by the Minister
of Labor – is not required to dismiss
him on this charge (See National Organization of
Laborers and Employees vs. Roldan, 95 Phil. 727;
Phil. Refining Co. vs. Garcia, 18 SCRA 107; Gatmaitan
vs. MRR, 21 SCRA 191).  It is
sufficient if there is ‘some basis’ for
such loss of confidence (Galsim
vs. PNB, 29 SCRA 293) or if 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 (see Reyes vs. Zamora, 90 SCRA 92; San
Miguel Corporation vs. The Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment, G.R. No.
61232-33, 29 December 1983).”  (Emphasis
supplied; San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, 128 SCRA 180, 187-188.)

Likewise, in Itogon Suyoc
Mines, Inc. v. NLRC, et al., 117 SCRA 523, 524, we ruled:

“x x x.  It has
been repeatedly held that an employer cannot be legally compelled to continue
with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of breach of trust
towards his employer and whose continuance in the service of the latter is
patently inimical to its interest x x x.”

The worker’s right to security of tenure,
is not an absolute right for the
law provides that he may be dismissed for cause.  “The law, in
protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor
self-destruction of the employer” (Philippine Air Lines vs. PALEA, 57 SCRA
489).

This is a clear case where the erring employee forfeited his
right to security of tenure by acts of dishonesty prejudicial to the interests
of his employer.  His dismissal is,
therefore, justified (PLDT vs.
NLRC, et al., 122 SCRA 618, 621).

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent National Labor
Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. 7-2901-86, entitled “Jimmy A. Megino vs. Manila Electric Company,” is reversed and
set aside.  The decision dated June 28, 1988 of the Labor Arbiter
granting the petitioner clearance to terminate the employment of respondent
Jimmy A. Megino, is reinstated.  Costs against the private
respondent.

SO ORDERED.

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