National Sugar Refineries Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission

MENDOZA, J.:

For review is the ruling 1 of the National Labor Relations Commission, affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal of private respondents Benjamin Quimba and Monico Lagrana and ordering them to pay private respondents separation pay, backwages, and other benefits. 2 The facts of this case are as follows: In 1969, respondent Quimba was detailed as a warehouseman in the Calinog Lambunao Sugarmill, Inc., a sister corporation of petitioner National Sugar Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO), until his transfer to petitioner corporation ten years later. On the other hand, respondent Lagrana started working for NASUREFCO in 1979 as sugar cut-in conveyor tender.

Through the years the two were promoted until Quimba became the sugar warehouse superintendent and Lagrana, the sugar warehouse supervisor. These were the positions they were holding when they were dismissed 1989. At that time, Quimba had served the company and its sister corporation for 20 years and 10 months, while Lagrana had served NASUREFCO for 10 years and 4 months.1âwphi1.nêt Sometime in August 1988, NASUREFCO held a bidding for the sale of used jute bags.

Jel Marketing won the right to purchase 100,000 pieces of class C bags. 3 The management committee in charge of the disposal of the bags, of which respondent Quimba was a member, designated the latter to supervise the withdrawal of the sacks from the NASUREFCO compound. As the class C bags were mixed with the more expensive types (classes A and B), it was agreed that the buyer, Jel Marketing, would send its own personnel to NASUREFCO for the sorting, counting, and bundling (SCB) of the 100,000 bags into bundles of 600.

Jel Marketing was to withdraw 50,000 bags in October 1988 but only 48,000 were segregated from the stockpile. 4 When its workers tried to sort and bundle the remaining 2,000 bags, private respondents did not allow them as some bags were mixed with class A ones. 5 As a result, Jel Marketing was only able to withdraw 48,000 bags.

When the workers came back on November 12, 1988 for the remaining bags, respondent Quimba directed respondent Lagrana to have Rodolfo Lilia, a utility man on floating status, supervise the sorting and bundling of bags, which lasted until November 17, 1988. On November 23, 1988, Jel Marketing sent two trucks to petitioner's Calinog plant to pick up the sacks. The gate pass covering the bags was signed by respondent Quimba, Paquito Rebote, representing Jel Marketing, and Expedito Buena, representing NASUREFCO's general manager, Conrado Viadad.

Upon inspection of the trucks' cargo at the gate, the guard discovered that the bundles were padded. A recount showed an excess of 20,500 bags worth P124,787.50. In his report on the same day to respondent Quimba, respondent Lagrana explained that due to the assignment of workers in the retrieval of burnt sacks and liquidation of raw sugar, was able to assign only one person, Lilia, to watch the sorting of the bags.

He added that on Lilia's day off on November 17, 1988, he assigned three other workers to the job. 6 In another report, dated November 25, 1988, Lagrana recommended the suspension of Lilia for thirty days for neglect of duty. 7In turn, Quimba submitted a report of the incident to Arsenio del Rosario, the administrative manager of NASUREFCO, attaching Lagrana's first report.

8 Meanwhile, Quimba required Lagrana to explain why he should not be suspended for neglect of duty. 9 Petitioners investigated private respondents on November 24-25, 1988, December 6, 1988, and January 10, 1989.

Nonetheless, the management of NASUREFCO did not take any disciplinary measures against private respondents who continued to work. In the third quarter of 1989, the management noted a shortage of 8,728 piculs of raw sugar from its stock. The matter was promptly reported to NASUREFCO's head office in Manila.

Acting on the report, the board of directors of NASUREFCO created a committee to investigate not only the reported sugar losses but also the attempted theft of used bags earlier. On August 10, 1989, private respondents were placed on a 30-day preventive suspension. Lilia was suspended for 30 days, effective August 9, 1989, for neglect of duty in connection with the sorting and bundling of the used bags in November 1988.

10 On September 6, 1989, private respondents' suspensions were extended for another 30 days pending the investigation by the committee. In addition, they were required to explain in writing why they should not be dismissed for gross negligence sorting and bundling and breach of trust. 11 In due time, both submitted their written explanations.

12 On October 25 and November 7, 1989, respectively, private respondents Quimba and Lagrana received memoranda informing them of their dismissal, effective November 10, 1989, for gross negligence and loss of trust in connection with the withdrawal of the used bags. 13 On November 13, 1989, private respondents sued NASUREFCO for illegal dismissal. Jenny Lagrana was substituted as party-complainant in place of her husband, respondent Monico Lagrana, who died on May 9, 1990.

After trial, the Labor Arbiter, on February 12, 1992, rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which provides: 14

PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent[s] [are] hereby directed to reinstate complainant Benjamin Quimba to his former position or any equivalent position and to pay complainants backwages and other accrued benefits due them, to wit: A. Benjamin Quimba 1. Service Incentive Leave Pay P 3,204.45 2. 13th month pay for 1989 5,593.69 3. Backwages 255,743.59 4. Moral Damages 150,000.00 5. Exemplary Damages 50,000.00