355 Phil. 236
MARTINEZ, J.:
“x x x that on March 20, 1991 in the morning while (Nebres and Suarez) were working in their respective areas of work, they were suddenly and forcibly brought by the guards of respondent company to John F. Cotton (Hospital) against their will for drug attest (sic); that their table drawers, bodies and pants were searched by the guards for ‘marijuana’; that a drug test was likewise conducted by the Philippine National Police Laboratory but the person who had given the test was not authorized; that they requested a ‘drug test’ of their urine at the laboratory of Camp Crame and they were accompanied by union officers but the results of the test appeared to be negative for marijuana; that the charge filed by Meralco against them for violation of RA 6425 was recommended for dismissal by the Provincial Prosecution Office of Pasig, Metro Manila.After the parties submitted their position papers and other documents, the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision dated December 21, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“Respondent Meralco in its position paper and rejoinder presented counter statement of facts as follows: sometime on March 20, 1991 at about 10:25 a.m., the Security Services Department personnel of the respondent company received an information from an anonymous caller that Nebres and Suarez assigned at Line Design Division (6th Floor, Lopez Building) were seen ‘smoking something’, which the anonymous caller mentioned as ‘shabu’; to verify the information, a team of security services personnel were (sic) dispatched, headed by Jose Daso, Ruben Valderon, Gemma Trinidad and German Sarmiento; upon entering the Line Design Division Office at around 10:45 where the complainants were assigned, they found the two to be abnormal in physical appearance and behavior. The security personnel then invited complainants with the consent of the latter’s supervisors to proceed to respondent’s John F. Cotton Hospital (JFCH); the invitation of the complainants were in pursuance to or compliance with the Company’s policy on drug abuse that employees suspected to be under the influence of drugs shall be referred to JFCH for clinical evaluation and diagnosis, and evaluatory testing; the complainants accompanied by their immediate supervisors and the security personnel were referred to Dra. Lourdes L. Ignacio (Chairperson of the Drug Abuse Committee of the company) and the latter informed the former about the need to conduct a urinalysis; and the complainants freely and voluntarily signed the ‘Consent for Hospital Care’; the complainant willingly gave their urine samples and, after the drug essay test was conducted, both were found positive for cannabinoids or ‘marijuana’. In line with the drug policy of the company, the complainants were referred to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Service (PNPCLS) Campo(sic) Crame, Quezon City, for further medical laboratory examinations. They were accompanied by Meralco Employees Union Association (MEWA) officers. They were seen and treated by P/Capt. Emmanuel Aranas, a Medico-Legal Officer who required complainants to submit urine sample, which they did, for laboratory examination, the result of which the complainants were found positive of marijuana; Gemma Trinidad, Jose Daso, Ruben Calderon, gave sworn statements attesting to the events that transpired. Based on the foregoing factual considerations, the complainants were formally sent a notice of investigations with administrative charge of violating the provisions of the Company Code on Employees Discipline and the Drug Abuse Policy of the Company. Report was rendered relative to the administrative charges against complainant and thereafter, they were sent notices of dismissal.”[3]
“In view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered, finding complainants’ dismissal to be VALID AND JUSTIFIABLE, and consequently, DISMISSING the instant case for lack of merit.Aggrieved by the adverse judgment of the Labor Arbiter, the complainants appealed to the respondent NLRC.
SO ORDERED.”[4]
ART. 221. Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement. -- In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. In any proceeding before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter, the parties may be represented by legal counsel but it shall be the duty of the Chairman, any Commissioner or any Labor Arbiter to exercise complete control of the proceedings at all stages. (Emphasis Supplied)
"Section 4. Determination of Necessity of Hearing. – Immediately after the submission by the parties of their position papers/memorandum, the Labor Arbiter shall motu propio determine whether there is need for a formal trial or hearing. At this stage, he may, at his discretion and for the purpose of making such determination, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence, if any from any party or witness." (Emphasis Supplied)
"Going over the pieces of evidence or Annexes submitted, there were two "Consent for Hospital Case" dated March 20, 1991 (Annexes "2" and "3") duly signed by the complainants respectively, which could be interpreted to mean that they had voluntarily submitted themselves for hospital care at respondent hospital. This Office finds credible the declaration/ statements of respondent witnesses who declared that there was never any use of force employed when complainants were invited to respondent's hospital for purposes of testing their urine. The "Policy on Drug Abuse" (Annex "1") of the respondent clearly defines/delinates (sic) the responsibilities of the same. It was on the basis on (sic) this policy that complainants were invited to respondent's hospital for testing of their urines as they were suspected of using drug (sic). (Emphasis Supplied)Respondent NLRC is in complete agreement with these findings. In fact, it did "not anymore discuss the observations/discussions made by the Labor Arbiter in his decision as we find the same to be in order and were properly based on documents submitted."[12]
As to the result of the laboratory test submitted by complainants (Annex "A") purportedly to prove that they were negative of any opium derivates x x x methamphetamines x x x cocaine, let it be noted that the aforesaid laboratory test was conducted on March 22, 1991 (underscoring supplied). The complainants themselves admitted that their urine samples were taken at respondent's hospital on March 20,1991 and they likewise averred that there was subsequent testing of their urine at Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory on the same day. The result of the laboratory test (Annexes "4" and "5") conducted on March 20, 1991 by respondent hospital indicated that the complainants were positive for marijuana.
Similarly, the result of the laboratory test (Annexes "6" and "7") conducted on even day by the PNP Crime Laboratory revealed that the complainants were positive for marijuana. As between the test conducted on the very same day when complainants were suspected using prohibited drugs and which was confirmed by the positive result and the test conducted two days later, this Office finds the former test to be more reliable. It could be noticed that the result of the laboratory test (Annex "A") submitted by the complainant's (sic) purportedly revealed that they were negative of x x x opium derivates x x x methamphetamines, and cocaine, and that there was no mention of complainants of having been positive for marijuana. More important to consider, however, the explanation by no less than P/Capt. Emmanuel L. Aranas who conducted the laboratory test of the urine samples of the complainants on March 20, 1991. As explained in his affidavit (Annex "18") "the test embraced in this report (referring to Annex "1" submitted by complainants) did not include marijuana anymore because the test on their urine specimens on March 20, 1991 discloses Nebres and Suarez to be positive for said drug, thus, the qualitative examination on the specimens subject to report No. DT-028-91 (Annex "1") yielded negative result to the test "for opium derivates, barbituarates, (sic) bensodiasephines, dextromenthorphan, chlophenria-mine maleate, methamphetamines, and cocaine xxx."[11]