362 Phil. 322
MENDOZA, J.:
SA KINAUUKULAN,On September 13, 1993, he was placed under preventive suspension pending investigation of the incident by the company. On the same day, he wrote a letter to his supervisor, D.M. Orpilla, Jr., asking for forgiveness. The letter, written in Filipino, reads:[2]
Ako po si G. Renato Felizardo, 22 anyos at kasalukuyang nakatira sa Cainta, Rizal.
Ako po ay isang regular employee [ng] SELECTA Production Dept.
Ako po ay nahulihan ng isang coloring container, 15 pirasong patties hamburger dito sa SELECTA Gate kasama ang isang pair na boots. Ang mga nabanggit na kagamitan ay walang kaukulang dokumento o papel subalit ito ay batid ni Mr. Orpilla na ilalabas ko ang mga ito. Ako po ay nasita ni Sg. Manolito Ojana bandang 7:45 ng umaga, 12 Setyembre 1993 dito sa SELECTA Gate.
Ang pag-aming ito ay kusang loob kong inihayag kay Sg. Richard M. Torino.
(Sgd.) R. FELIZARDO
BOSS. Pasensya na kayo, alam ko magagalit kayo sa akin pero hindi ko rin kagustuhan ito, iu[u]wi ko sana `yong Bota ko kasi baha sa aming saka `yong coloring container, saka iyong konting natira na patties pero nasita ako ng Guardia. Kaya sinabi ko `yong patties eh, nakuha ko lang sa Janitor eh, itatapon na kaya iuuwi ko sana. Eh, gusto yata ng Guardia eh makausap kayo para maayos.However, D.M. Orpilla, Jr., in his memorandum to respondent company's management, recommended petitioner's dismissal from employment for the following reasons:[3]
Boss, kakasuhan yata ako kaya nagmamakaawa ako sa inyo Boss tulungan ninyo ako. Hindi ko naman ito gustong mangyari naenganyo lang ako. Eh, gusto yata ni Capt. Molina eh kayo makausap.
Boss, ngayon lang ako sa inyo magmamakaawa alam ko maiintindihan ninyo rin ako saka kayo lang ang alam kong makakatulong sa akin sana maunawaan ninyo ko. Hindi ko na kayo nahintay dahil wala pa kong tulog since Sunday morning dahil dito. Kaya nasulat ko na lang.
Ang nagmamakaawa,
FELIZ
Stated below are the circumstances regarding the attempt of Renato Felizardo (Production Weigher) to take out of the company premises the following:On September 27, 1993, petitioner was dismissed for dishonesty for theft of company property, effective September 13, 1993.I. BACKGROUND
- Fifteen (15) pcs. Hamburger Patties
- One (1) pc. of White Boots
- One (1) pc. Aluminum Container (empty)
Based on the memo issued by Lt. E.G. Bianes, Detachment Commander dated 13 September 1993, R. FELIZARDO was caught by S.G. Manolito Ojana attempting to take out of the company premises the above items. According to the written statement of R. Felizardo (which he has submitted to the Security Dept.) that DMOrpilla, Jr. gave him the blessing to take out of the premises the said items which is totally not true. Neither did DMOrpilla gave him the alleged blessing nor did he give permission for him to bring the said items out.
II. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Subject tried to get out [of] the mess by dragging DMOrpilla's name which he is not aware of.
2. Based on the statement of his co-employees (Agnes Bautista, GAD Technician, Leonil Santos, FG Whse Foreman), they both warned him against doing it.
III. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
R. Felizardo admitted that he did it based on a handwritten note (see attached) that he sent DMOrpilla thru N. Sta. Ana, morning of September 13, 1993.
IV. VIOLATION COMMITTED
Based on the existing SDPI Company Rules and Regulations, R. Felizardo violated Company Rules and Regulations 11, Section 15 stated as:
Violation Penalty
Dishonesty, stealing Termination
from the
Company or stealing
from others
V. RECOMMENDATION
The subject having committed the above violation is worse but dragging other people's name to justify commission of such an act is even worst.
We are recommending the termination of Mr. Renato Felizardo.
A careful examination of the record of the case reveals that complainant was found guilty of theft for stealing a pair of company boots, 15 pieces of hamburger patties, and 1 piece of aluminum container.Petitioners contend that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and upholding petitioner's dismissal from employment. They claim that the NLRC erred in finding that petitioner was guilty of stealing company property.
Humanitarian consideration weighs heavily against harsh punishment but the offense which complainant is admittedly guilty [of] . . . . is specifically defined both under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, and the company rules and regulations as a just cause for dismissal. And while it is true that a worker should be more favored in law, it is equally true that the employer should not be required to continuously employ someone who has betrayed its trust and confidence.
In relation with the defenses put up by complainant-appellee, it was aptly observed by the respondents-appellants that the defense of prior knowledge of the company through complainant-appellee's immediate supervisor is belied by the contents of his written explanation (p. 19, Records) in connection with his letter to Mr. M. Orpilla, his supervisor, where he practically admitted his attempt to cart away the said items had it not been timely foiled by the security guard manning the gate (p. 20, Records).
As to whether or not complainant acted with intent to gain, suffice it to say, that in Criminal Law, intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another, and in the case at bar the taking of company property was without the permission or knowledge of the company. Moreover, it is not necessary that there was real or actual gain on the part of the offender. It is enough that on taking them, he was then actuated by the desire or intent to gain (People vs. Mercado, 65 Phil. 665).
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appeal is hereby granted and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 22 August 1994 is hereby SET ASIDE, and a new Order is hereby entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit.
It is not only because of the law's concern for the workingman. There is, in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs then could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that under all the circumstances of this case, petitioners should not be deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is this to condone what had been done by them. For all this while, since private respondent considered them separated from the service, they had not been paid. For the strictly juridical standpoint, it cannot be too strongly stressed, to follow Davis in his masterly work, Discretionary Justice, that where a decision may be made to rest on informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all the equities of the case must be accorded their due weight. Finally, labor law determinations, to quote from Bultmann, should be not only secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem.This case is similar to Gelmart Industries Phils., Inc. v. NLRC,[9] in which this Court affirmed the reinstatement of an employee who had taken out of the employer's premises one (1) plastic container filled with about 16 ounces of used motor oil. Reiterating the ruling in Meracap, we held:[10]
Considering that private respondent herein has no previous derogatory record in his fifteen (15) years of service with petitioner GELMART, the value of the property pilfered (16 ounces of used motor oil) is very minimal, plus the fact that petitioner failed to reasonably establish that non-dismissal of private respondent would work undue prejudice to the viability of their operation or is patently inimical to the company's interest, it is more in consonance with the policy of the State, as embodied in the Constitution, to resolve all doubts in favor of labor.As already stated, dismissal as a measure to protect the interests of respondent company is unwarranted under the facts of this case. Suspension would have sufficed. Without deciding for how long the suspension should be in cases such as this, considering that petitioner has been prevented from working in respondent company since September 13, 1993, we hold that, for all purposes, he has served a reasonable period of suspension commensurate to the gravity of his offense. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter's order of reinstatement of petitioner without backwages may be considered appropriate.