004-mercury drug corporation v. nlrc g.r. no. 75662 september 15, 1989

7/24/2019 004-Mercury Drug Corporation v. NLRC G.R. No. 75662 September 15, 1989

1/3

Mercury Drug Corporation v. NLRC G.R. No. 75662 1of

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 75662 September 15, 1989

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATON,petitioner

vs.

NATONA! !A"OR RE!ATONS COMMSSON, N!RC S#ER$$ %&' CESAR E. !ADS!A,

respondents.

Veronica G. de Vera for petitioner.

David B. Agoncillo for private respondent.

$ERNAN, C.J.:

Petitioner assails in this petition for review on certiorarithe Resolution dated ul! "#$ %&'( of the National )abRelations *o++ission in N)R* *ase No. R,-IV-%&/%-0'-T den!in1 petitioner2s +otion for reconsideration of i

decision dated 3pril /$ %&'( which reversed the decision of )abor 3rbiter *eferina . Diosana and ordered th

reinstate+ent of private respondent *esar 4. )adisla to his for+er position with full bac5wa1es.

Records show that private respondent *esar 4. )adisla was e+plo!ed b! petitioner Mercur! Dru1 *orporation as

Stoc5 3nal!st at its *laro M. Recto ,ranch. He had been with the co+pan! for two !ears and nine +onths whe

on 3u1ust %6$ %&00 he was apprehended b! representatives of Mercur! Dru1 while in the act of pilferin1 co+pan

propert! consistin1 of three 78 bottles of Persantin and one 7%8 bottle of Valoron at %// tablets per bottle with

total value of P"0".//. He ad+itted his 1uilt to the investi1atin1 representatives of petitioner co+pan! an

e9ecuted a handwritten ad+ission. Said ad+ission was repeated verball! at the police station before the arrestin

officer as shown in the ,oo5in1 Sheet and 3rrest Report which was si1ned and authenticated b! )adisla. Thus$ o

3u1ust %&$ %&00$ petitioner$ while si+ultaneousl! placin1 private respondent on preventive suspension$ file

before the Depart+ent of )abor an application for the ter+ination of private respondent2s e+plo!+ent on 1round

of dishonest! and breach of trust.

Private respondent opposed the aforesaid application for clearance to ter+inate his services alle1in1 a+on1 other

that his suspension and proposed dis+issal were unfounded and baseless bein1 pre+ised on the +achinations an

incri+inator! acts of Ms. )eonora Suare: and 4d1ardo I+perial$ Mana1er and Retail Supervisor$ respectivel!$

petitioner2s *laro M. Recto ,ranch; and that he was not 1iven the opportunit! to be heard nor allowed to e9pla

his side before he was su++aril! suspended.

The parties were then reirst Instance$ subse


2/3


respondent2s dis+issal and 1ranted petitioner2s application for clearance to ter+inate$ the services of the for+e

Private respondent appealed his aforesaid dis+issal to the National )abor Relations *o++ission. Pendin

resolution of the appeal$ herein petitioner filed a Manifestation with said *o++ission notif!in1 the latter of th

on1oin1 trial in *ri+inal *ase No. #/&( a1ainst private respondent. On Septe+ber %6$ %&'$ @ud1+ent wa

rendered in *ri+inal *ase No. #/&($ findin1 private respondent accused 1uilt! of the cri+e of si+ple theft. N

appeal was ta5en fro+ the decision in the sub@ect cri+inal case$ private respondent havin1 availed hi+self of thbenefits of the Probation )aw. He was eventuall! dischar1ed fro+ probation on Dece+ber "0$ %&'#$ aft

co+pl!in1 with the ter+s and conditions thereof.

On 3pril /$ %&'($ public respondent National )abor Relations *o++ission reversed the decision of the )abo

3rbiter because it found no substantial evidence establishin1 the char1e a1ainst private respondent )adisla statin

thusA

=H4R4>OR4$ the Decision appealed fro+ is hereb! set aside and a new one entered orderin

respondent to i++ediatel! reinstate hi+ in 7sic8 his for+er position with full bac5 wa1es.

SO ORD4R4D.Petitioner filed a +otion for reconsideration of the afore+entioned decision$ which was denied b! publ

respondent *o++ission in its resolution dated ul! "#$ %&'(.Hence$ this petition assailin1 the latter2s reversal

the labor arbiter2s decision and its order for the reinstate+ent with full bac5 wa1es of private respondent.

Petitioner sub+its that it was serious le1al error on the part of public respondent to order the reinstate+ent o

private respondent who was convicted of the cri+e of si+ple theft b! ud1e Pedro Ra+ire: in *ri+inal *ase N

#/&( filed b! petitioner a1ainst said private respondent-e+plo!ee involvin1 the sa+e facts obtainin1 in th

present case for ter+ination. On the other hand$ private respondent +aintains that he was a victi+ of reven1e an

incri+inator! +achinations as the char1e of


3/3


the e+plo!ee of the trust reposed in hi+ b! his e+plo!er or his dul! authori:ed representative.C )oss of confiden

is established as a valid 1round for the dis+issal of an e+plo!ee. The law does not re

004-mercury drug corporation v. nlrc g.r. no. 75662 september 15, 1989

Documents