Bughaw v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court , filed by petitioner Eduardo Bughaw, Jr., seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision,1 dated 14 June 2005 and the Resolution,2 dated 8 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85498. The appellate court reversed the Decision dated 28 August 2003 and Resolution dated 27 February 2004 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. V-000231-02 that found the petitioner to be illegally dismissed from employment by respondent Treasure Island Industrial Corporation. The dispositive portion of the assailed appellate court's Decision thus reads: WHEREFORE, discussion considered, the decision dated August 28, 2003 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, Cebu City, in NLRC Case No. V-000231-02 (RAB VII-06-1171-01), is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE en toto.

The award of money claims to [herein petitioner] is NULLIFIED and RECALLED.3 The factual and procedural antecedents of the instant Petition are as follows: Sometime in March 1986, petitioner was employed as production worker by respondent. Respondent was receiving information that many of its employees were using prohibited drugs during working hours and within the company premises.4 On 5 June 2001, one of its employees, Erlito Loberanes (Loberanes) was caught in flagrante delicto by the police officers while in possession of shabu. Loberanes was arrested and sent to jail.

In the course of police investigation, Loberanes admitted the commission of the crime. He implicated petitioner in the crime by claiming that part of the money used for buying the illegal drugs was given by the latter, and the illegal drugs purchased were for their consumption for the rest of the month.5 In view of Loberanes's statement, respondent, on 29 June 2001, served a Memo for Explanation6 to petitioner requiring him to explain within 120 hours why no disciplinary action should be imposed against him for his alleged involvement in illegal drug activities. Petitioner was further directed to appear at the office of respondent's legal counsel on 16 June 2001 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning for the hearing on the matter.

For the meantime, petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for the period of 30 days effective upon receipt of the Notice. Notwithstanding said Memo, petitioner failed to appear before the respondent's legal counsel on the scheduled hearing date and to explain his side on the matter. On 19 July 2001, respondent, through legal counsel, sent a second letter7 to petitioner directing him to attend another administrative hearing scheduled on 23 July 2001 at 11:00 o'clock in the morning at said legal counsel's office but petitioner once again failed to show up.

Consequently, respondent, in a third letter8 dated 21 August 2001 addressed to petitioner, terminated the latter's employment retroactive to 11 June 2001 for using illegal drugs within company premises during working hours, and for refusal to attend the administrative hearing and submit written explanation on the charges hurled against him. On 20 July 2001, petitioner filed a complaint9 for illegal dismissal against respondent and its President, Emmanuel Ong, before the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner alleged that he had been working for the respondent for 15 years and he was very conscientious with his job.

He was suspended for 30 days on 11 June 2001 based on the unfounded allegation of his co-worker that he used illegal drugs within company premises. When petitioner reported back to work after the expiration of his suspension, he was no longer allowed by respondent to enter the work premises and was told not to report back to work.

On 8 January 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision10 in favor of petitioner since the respondent failed to present substantial evidence to establish the charge leveled against the petitioner. Apart from Loberanes's statements on petitioner's alleged illegal drug use, no other corroborating proof was offered by respondent to justify petitioner's dismissal. Further, respondent failed to comply with due process when it immediately suspended petitioner and eventually dismissed him from employment.

Petitioner's immediate suspension was not justified since no evidence was submitted by the respondent to establish that petitioner's continued employment pending investigation poses a serious and imminent threat to respondent's life or property or to the life or property of petitioner's co-workers. Finally, the Labor Arbiter observed that the notices of hearing sent by respondent to petitioner were not duly received by the latter. The Labor Arbiter was not swayed by respondent's explanation that the reason therefor was that petitioner refused to receive said notices.

The Labor Arbiter thus ruled: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering [herein respondent] to pay [herein petitioner] the following: 1. Separation pay ₱ 74,100.00 2. Backwages ₱ 27,550.00 3.

Unpaid wages ₱ 4,940.00 Total