ENRIQUE R. ROSELLO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Is the dismissal of an employee for breach of trust and loss of
confidence proper? This is the issue in this petition.

Petitioner is employed as salesman by private respondent Pepsi
Cola Distributors of the Philippines
with a monthly salary of P1,441.85 and cost of living
allowance in the amount of P510.00.

On July 25, 1985
petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for alleged violation of
company rules and regulations.

An administrative investigation was conducted by private
respondent wherein it was found among others, that:  (1) petitioner created fictitious credit
extensions in the account of Chin Chin Store by
forging the signature of its owner, Mr. Dizon; and
(2) petitioner failed to remit the collections in the amount of P16,857.50.

Thus, on July 14, 1986
private respondent dismissed petitioner from the service for violation of
company rules and regulations, breach of trust and loss of confidence.  The period of petitioner’s preventive
suspension was considered service without pay.

Petitioner then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the
National Labor Relations Commission wherein in due course, on October 7, 1988,
labor arbiter Ariel C. Santos rendered a decision directing the reinstatement
of petitioner to his former position with full backwages
and without loss of seniority rights from July 14, 1986 until actual
reinstatement, and further of all the sums owing to petitioner is also awarded
to him as attorney’s fees.

Private respondent appealed to the respondent National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC).  On September 29, 1989 respondent NLRC
rendered its decision reversing the appealed decision.  A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by
petitioner was denied by the NLRC on November
10, 1989.

Hence this special civil action for certiorari, which was
erroneously denominated as a petition for review on certiorari, wherein
petitioner alleges that the respondent NLRC committed
the following alleged errors:

“I   THAT THE
RESPONDENT NLRC DID NOT ACQUIRE ANY JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S
APPEAL BEFORE THEM;

II   GRANTING THAT IT HAS
JURISDICTION THE RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT DISREGARDED
THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER ARIEL SANTOS
INSPITE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT;

III   THAT THE RESPONDENT
NLRC COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT IMPOSED
THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL ON YOUR PETITIONER;

IV  THAT THE RESPONDENT NLRC BREACHED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMEMT;

V   AND LASTLY, THE
RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT AFFIRMING THE LABOR ARBITER’S
DECISION OF OCTOBER 7, 1988
IN FAVOR OF YOUR PETITIONER.

The petition is devoid of merit.

No doubt the NLRC has
appellate jurisdiction over the decision of the labor arbiter which is being assailed
to be erroneous and not supported by the evidence constituting as it does a
grave abuse of discretion.¹

In this case respondent
NLRC did not err in disregarding the conclusions reached by the labor arbiter
because its findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

Petitioner admits that he
delivered Pepsi Cola products to the store of Mr. Martin Concepcion
at 2593
Beata Street, Pandacan, Manila, on April 2 and 12, 1985, but he made it
appear that the products were delivered to Chin Chin
store.  He also admitted having failed to
remit part of his collections amounting to P16,857.00.

Petitioner advances the lame excuse that he was only acting upon
instructions of his supervisor, Mr. Concepcion and he
did not want to incur the ire of his superior for fear of being dismissed from
the service.

Assuming his claim to be true, he had no duty to follow
instructions of his superior that is not only anomalous and contrary to rules
and regulations of the company but is certainly unlawful.  Instead he should have reported the matter to
higher authorities.  In electing to obey
the unlawful instructions of his superior he thereby assumed responsibility for
his acts.

The petitioner was duly investigated by the private respondent
for these infractions of the rules and regulations of the company and after
having been afforded due process he was dismissed from the service.

No doubt it is the right of an employer to dismiss an employee
for breach of trust and loss of confidence as in this case.  The security of tenure accorded to labor
under the Constitution does not embrace infractions of the rules amounting to
breach of trust and loss of confidence as in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman) Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.