PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND VICENTE ERNESTO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a review of the decision of Commissioners Diego P. Atienza and Geronimo Q. Quadra of the National Labor
Relations Commission, ordering the reinstatement of Vicente Ernesto as
warehouseman of Philippine Geothermal, Inc. with backwages
equivalent to one year, six months and twenty-six days computed at the hourly
rate at the time of his dismissal.

From that decision, Commissioner Cleto
T. Villatuya dissented.  He opined that Ernesto’s participation in the
theft of the company’s property was proven by substantial evidence and,
therefore, the dismissal was justified.

At about four o’clock
in the afternoon of August 15, 1978
a Petrophil tanker driven by Juan Reyes with Marcos Geralde as helper arrived at the company’s project site
located at Barrio Bitin, Bay, Laguna to deliver ten
thousand liters of Petron diesel oil which were
purchased by the company from Petrophil for P11,737.

Warehouseman Vicente Ernesto acknowledged the receipt of the
shipment by signing the corresponding delivery invoice.  The oil was supposed to be unloaded at Well
No. 26 in the project site at Sitio Bulalo.  However, the
tanker, instead of proceeding to Bulalo, went out of
the gate, still loaded.  It was
accompanied by Ernesto who informed the security guard, Roberto Solis, that there
was a misdelivery because what was brought by the
tanker was diesel oil instead of gasoline. 
That misrepresentation was entered by Solis in his logbook (pp. 4-5, 41,
Rollo).

Thus, the oil was not delivered at the drilling area although
according to the delivery invoice signed by Ernesto it was received by the
company.  The oil was diverted and sold
to another person.

Reyes in his extrajudicial confession revealed that the oil was
sold for P9,000 in Caloocan City
and that he gave Ernesto P4,500 and Geralde P1,000 as their shares in the proceeds
of the sale (p. 5, Rollo).  Reyes said that Ernesto connived (nakipagsabuatan) with him in the diver­sion and sale
of the oil.

The fiscal charged Ernesto, Reyes and Geralde
with qualified theft in the Court of First Instance of Laguna.  However, after a reinvestigation, wherein
Reyes and Solis did not testify, the fiscal exonerated Ernesto and filed a
motion for the dismissal of the case against him.  The court granted the motion.

The company’s appeal from
the fiscal’s finding, which was based on the
technicality that Reyes’ confession was not admissible against Ernesto,
was dismissed by the Minister of Justice in his resolution dated January 14, 1981.

Nevertheless, despite that exoneration, Philippine Geothermal,
Inc. dismissed Ernesto and on August
31, 1978 filed with the Ministry of Labor an application for clearance
to dismiss him for his involvement in the theft of the oil.

About seven months later, or on March 28, 1979, Ernesto filed a complaint against the
company for reinstatement with backwages.  The two cases were tried jointly in the NLRC’s San Pablo City
branch.  The Labor Arbiter ordered the
reinstatement of Ernesto with backwages.  The NLRC affirmed that decision with some
modification.

We hold that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC committed a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in disregarding the
testimonies of Solis, the security guard, and Reyes, the driver, in these two
cases, proving that Ernesto was implicated in the theft of the diesel oil.  Ernesto did not rebut those testimonies.

Hence, the fiscal’s exoneration of
Ernesto does not justify his reinstatement. 
Petitioner’s evidence shows that Ernesto committed a fraud or breach of
trust which is a statutory ground for his dismissal (Art. 283[c]), Labor Code).

“The conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not
indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer.” If there is
sufficient evidence to show that the employee has been guilty of a breach of
trust, or that his employer has ample reason to distrust him, the labor
tribunal “cannot justly deny to the employer the authority to dismiss such
an employee”.  The fact that a
criminal complaint for theft against an employee was dropped by the fiscal is
not binding and conclusive on the labor tribunal (National Labor Union, Inc.
vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, 73 Phil. 279).

In the National Labor Union case, supra, the
foreman and the checker of the lubricating oil department of an oil company,
who were involved in the shortage of the oil stock in the company warehouse,
were dismissed although the fiscal had dismissed the charge of theft filed
against them.  See similar holding in
National Organization of Laborers and Employees vs. Roldan,
95 Phil. 727, 733 and Phil. Education Co., Inc. vs. Union of Phil. Education
Employees and CIR, 107 Phil. 1003.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission is reversed and set aside and the dis­missal of Vicente Ernesto as
petitioner’s warehouseman is hereby decreed. 
No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.