456 Phil. 68
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Dear Mr. Naguit,Administrative hearings were thus conducted by MERALCO's Special Presidential Committee on February 27, 1990 and July 16, 1990 during which petitioner expressly waived his right to counsel and gave two sworn statements before the Office of the Investigation Staff of said committee, one dated February 27, 1990[12] and another dated July 16, 1990[13] denying the charges.
SPC is in receipt of information that on two occasions, you reportedly caused the reimbursement of transportation expense for alleged work of Mr. Fidel Cabuhat not actually rendered. And that on another occasion, you allegedly left your work assignment without permission from your superior. These acts, if proven true, constitute violation of Section 7, Pars. 7 and 11, and Section 5 Par. 2, of the Company Code on Employee Discipline.
We request that you report to our Mr. Lauro J. Sillesa at the 13th floor, Lopez Building, Ortigas Avenue, Pasig, Metro Manila on February 27, 1990 (Tuesday) at 9:00 a.m. to air your side.
In this connection, you may avail yourself with (sic) the services of a counsel during the proceeding, if you so desire. Should you fail to appear on the aforementioned date, we shall take this to mean that you are waiving your right to such counsel. (Underscoring supplied)
Dear Mr. Naguit:Petitioner thus filed on August 27, 1991 a complaint[20] with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV of San Pablo City against MERALCO for illegal dismissal, he praying for reinstatement, backwages, damages, attorney's fees and other awards he is entitled to.
Formal administrative investigation duly conducted by the Company's Special Presidential Committee established the following:Under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the termination of your employment in Meralco is justified on the following grounds: (a) Serious Misconduct x x x by the employee x x x in connection with his work; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against x x x his employer; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
- On June 6, 1987, while you were supposed to be on the sixth day work as Administrative Officer of the Sta. Cruz Branch, you accompanied your wife in going to Pagbilao, Quezon where the latter stood as principal wedding sponsor. In the timesheet which you signed, you made it appear that you actually worked on that day and you drew and received your salary for that day. Your aforesaid act constitutes a violation of Section 7, par. 7 of the Company Code on Employee Discipline which proscribes: "(f)alsifying time cards or any other timekeeping records, or drawing salary or allowance by virtue of falsified timecards, vouchers, receipts or the like[,]" penalized therein with suspension to dismissal, depending upon the gravity of the offense.
- On June 6, 1987 and June 17, 1987, you induced Accounts Investigator Fidel Cabuhat to prepare two (2) petty cash vouchers in the amount of P192.00 each, or a total of P304.00, purportedly in payment for the rental of a jeep which was allegedly used in the performance of the latter's duties. Upon your instruction, the said amount was applied to bill omissions to make it appear that the employee who drove for you, actually reported for duty on June 6, 1987. By such act, you have grossly violated Section 6, par. b-24 of the same Code which proscribes "(e)ncouraging, inducing x x x another employee to perform an act constituting violation of this Code or of Company work rules or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter x x x[,]" penalized therein with reprimand to dismissal, depending upon the gravity of the offense.
Based on the foregoing, Management is constrained to dismiss you for cause from the service and employ of the Company, as you are hereby dismissed effective June 13, 1991, with forfeiture of all rights and privileges.
x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the complainant and against respondent, ordering the latter:MERALCO appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the NLRC upon the following grounds:The rest of the claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
- to reinstate complainant to his former position with two-year backwages computed on the basis of his monthly salary of P16,491.00 plus P580.00 monthly allowance or the sum of P409,704.00 in addition to 24 cavans/sacks of rice; and
- to pay complainant attorney's fees equivalent to ten per cent (10%) of the adjudged monetary award of the sum [of] P40,970.40
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied)
THE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE IGNORED THE MATERIAL FACTS AND THE CLEAR CONVINCING EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY RESPONDENT-APPELLANT MERALCO TO JUSTIFY THE TERMINATION OF COMPLAINANT ANICETO W. NAGUIT, JR.By Decision of November 28, 1994,[22] the NLRC Third Division reversed that of the Labor Arbiter and accordingly dismissed the complaint.II.
THE DECISION IS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.III.
REINSTATEMENT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE. TO COMPEL APPELLANT MERALCO TO TAKE BACK APPELLEE NAGUIT WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGES OR INJURY TO THE FORMER.IV.
AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES IS NOT JUSTIFIED.
THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM FACTS BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE[.]The issue in the main is whether petitioner's dismissal is valid.II.
RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN MAKING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND/ OR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE SUCH AS THAT (a) PETITIONER NAGUIT NOT BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IS NOT AT ALL COVERED BY RESPONDENT'S POLICIES PERTAINING TO FIELD PERSONNEL; (b) THAT PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF RANK DISHONESTY [.][23]
ATTY. ASINAS: With respect to your discretion as branch manager or the team leader in the field, do those personnel working in the field, even if they have only actually rendered six or 4 hours, they can already leave provided the work assigned to them has been done, does that apply only to field personnel or regular office personnel like Mr. Naguit who is on special assignment?As stated early on, petitioner advised on June 5, 1987 his superior Ortega about his rendering overtime work the following day, June 6, 1987, after which he would head for Pagbilao after concluding his work. If petitioner had intended to do overtime work up to 5:00 p.m., there would have been no need for him to advise Ortega that he would thereafter go to Pagbilao.
WITNESS: If we take into consideration the material hours, if it is one (1) hour it is okay, but if you worked for three (3) hours and then get paid for eight (8) hours that is not allowed any more . . . . the hours are immaterial; four (4) hours can be foregone (sic).
ATTY MARTINEZ: Does that apply to regular office personnel?
WITNESS: I think so.
LABOR ARBITER: What is the factor considered in giving the leeway to field personnel?
WITNESS: When office personnel are assigned or given field assignments, they forego the convenience of the office; they are exposed to the heat of the sun, the rigors of travel, eating places, dust, so that when they are given field assignments, they are given certain considerations.
LABOR ARBITER: Unless the work is satisfactorily done?
WITNESS: Yes, your honor.
LABOR ARBITER: In terms of hours, would you give us your consideration?
WITNESS: One (1) hour or one-and-half (1 ½) hours are not very material. 2/8. . . . (sic) I will judge the number of hours that can be foregone according to percentage. ¼ day will be material.
ATTY. MARTINEZ: And when you said that it will be material, ¼ will be material, you mean to say that you cannot dispense or allow ¼ day even for satisfactory work?
WITNESS: (No answer)
LABOR ARBITER: Put otherwise, ¼ day is allowable so long as the work is completed?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
LABOR ARBITER: Pushing further, how about ½ day?
WITNESS: It will be too much.
ATTY. MARTINEZ: So, ½ day will not be allowed under whatever circumstances?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.[25] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
. . . Of course, on further examination, [Ortega] opined that half day would not be allowed. But, the fact remains that such discretion is exercised, the limit of which was not shown to have been disseminated to the employees, the qualifying factor being whether the job was satisfactory or not. If on the contrary, there was indeed no such practice or, that complainant, being an office personnel, is removed from coverage thereof and governed strictly by the time-rule such that he would have been off at the actual completion of the assigned task, he would not have bothered to inform his branch head - in effect a request for permission of his planned trip to Pagbilao, Quezon thereafter. That would have been meaningless gesture on the part of the complainant.In fine, this Court credits the petitioner with good faith when he did not correct the entry in the Notice of Overtime and Timesheet reflecting that he worked up to 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 1987. The charge of falsification against him does not thus lie.[27]
By and large, with the incentive scheme or tolerance of respondent, there is no resulting prejudice to respondent so to speak of nor intention on the part of complainant to cause it. What was done was consistent with management policy on covering the overtime work in the branch. As pointed out by the complainant, if his intention really is to defraud respondent, he would not have erased the work entry for June 7, and could have collected more. [26] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
As clearly established by his own account, petitioner, despite his knowledge that Cabuhat did not hire any jeep nor conduct field verification on June 6, 1987, released the petty cash representing Cabuhat's meal allowance and rental fee for a jeep.
x x x T: Kung wala kang nalalaman dito sa nasabing 2 petty cash na ito, at sinabi mo rin na ito ay binayaran kay Fidel Cabuhat. Papano naman nangyari at itong petty cash na may petsang June 6, 1987 sa halagang P192.00 at may control no. 06-0067 ay binayaran mo kay Cabuhat ganoong alam mong hindi naman siya umupa ng jeep ng araw na iyon at hindi naman siya nag-field verification dahil kasama mo si Cabuhat sa Pagbilao, Quezon?S: Maaaring iyon po ay ipinalit niya sa akin ng Lunes. At dahil sa may pirma ang hepe niya na si Mr. Rodrigo Samson at may pirma ang hepe namin ay binayaran ko na.T: Ang ibig mong sabihin ay hindi mo man lang binasa ang petty cash na ito pati ang petsa at basta binayaran mo na lamang dahil may pirma ang hepe? S: Ta[m]a po dahil sa dami ng gawain ko ay basta ko na lamang binayaran, at nakita ko ang p[irma] ng hepe namin. x x x
T: Ang sabi mo ay noong June 6, 1987 ay nagkita kayo ni Cabuhat sa San Pablo at siya ay kasama mo sa kasalan sa Pagbilao, Quezon. Ang sabi mo din ay walang sasakyang dala si Cabuhat noong siya ay makita mo sa San Pablo kasama si Cruz. Bakit mo naman napalitan itong petty cash ni Cabuhat for hired jeep noong petsang iyon alam mo naman na wala siyang inarkilang jeep?S: Hindi ko na po nireview itong mga petty cash. Pag nakita kong pirmado ng kanyang hepe at ng branch head ay aking ng binabayaran.x x x[31] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)