Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01 - Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation VS NLRC
01 - Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation VS NLRC
BIDIN, J .:
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
551
seniority rights and privileges and to pay them their full backwages
computed from the date of their illegal dismissal up to the date they
are actually reinstated.”
‘Sometime in the last week of February 1985 while I was detailed at the main door
of Dore Plant, I was approached by Mr. Edgardo Vilbar, a Selenium operator, and
told me that they will bring out Dore Metal. He did it for two times but I refused. But
in the third time, because I was in need of money, I agreed. The Dore Metal was
brought thru Selenium. I cannot however, remember the date when VILVAR brought
out the metal. On March 4, 1985, I was given P2,000.00 pesos by VILBAR as my
share for the loot and it was given to me at a boarding house in Matlang. In the
month of May 1985, VILVAR again brought out Dore Metal and I was given
P3,000.00 pesos by him the same place in Matlang. In the month of July 1985, Mr.
Rufo ELUMIR, also a Selenium operator brought out Dore metal and I was given
P1,000.00 pesos by Mr. APOLINAR MONTANO as my share in the house of one
Mendola at Matlang.’
552
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR) vs.
National Labor Relations Commission
dore metals.
“Was just cause for complainant’s dismissal proved in the present
proceeding?
This office finds the evidence presented by respondent insufficient to
conclude that complainants ought to be dismissed.
“Respondent relies solely on the ‘confession’ of Henry Berezo with no
other evidence, corroborative or otherwise, to speak of.
“Henry Berezo’s ‘confession’ asks more questions than it answers.
“How were complainants able to bring out dore metals from PASAR’s
dore plant?
“Respondent states emptily that complainants were dore operators. But
Berezo himself confirms complainant’s assertion that they were assigned at
the Selenium Section, not the Dore Section. It is uncontested that the rules
and regulations of respondent absolutely prohibit plant operators assigned at
the Selenium Section from entering Dore Section. Moreover, there are
security guards other than Berezo stationed at both dore and selenium
sections who are equipped with metal detection devices. There are,
additionally, teams of other security guards at the main gate assigned to frisk
or inspect bodily anyone including plant operators on their way out of the
plant. Even assuming that Berezo was indeed part of the conspiracy and
allowed complains to pass through him with stolen dore metals,
complainants still had the other security guards at either dore or selenium
sections and those at the main gate to contend with. Unless all or a very
large number of the security guards were part of the alleged conspiracy,
complainants or anybody else for that matter, could not have brought out
any dore metal illegally. But there is no showing of such widespread
conspiracy.
“Indeed, there is not even adequate evidence to establish conspiracy.
There is only the confession of Henry Berezo which under strict technical
rules is not even admissible as evidence against complainants. It is
miserably lacking in weight and sufficiency.
“Respondent’s evidence, it should be said, comes from a polluted source.
Complainants may have been implicated as easily as it were to deflect bulk
of the blame away from Berezo and pin it on complainants primarily and a
few others. Respondents never attempted to explain the circumstances
surrounding Berezo’s confession. Neither did he, credibly.
“Nor did respondent explain, through Berezo, when the alleged pilferage
of dore metals was committed or how much dore metal was taken out by the
alleged conspirators. While proof beyond reasonable
553
doubt is not demanded in this proceeding, important details could have been
provided to convince this office that the charges against complainants bear
substance. There was none.
“While it is recognized that the power to dismiss employees falls within
sound management prerogative, this Office holds that the prerogative has
been improvidently wielded in these cases.” (Rollo, pp. 24-28).
The labor arbiter ruled that the two complainants were illegally
dismissed.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision in
toto.
Hence, this petition.
The petitioner corporation raises a lone issue in this petition, to
wit:
554
“Perusal of the records shows that there was no just cause, to warrant
disciplinary action of dismissal against private respondents. The evidence
shows that private respondents were dismissed from employment by
petitioner on the basis of the alleged confession of Henry M. Berezo, a Linsi
security guard assigned at the Dore Plant, regarding the existence of a
pilferage syndicate. While there was an investigating committee created to
unearth the alleged anomaly, the committee merely inquired about the
names of employees involved in the pilferage of dore metals. The statements
of the lone material witness, Henry M. Berezo, both before the investigating
body and the Honorable Arbiter only show his participation and only
vaguely described how and when the illegal act was committed and what
was the particular participation of each member. Berezo simply enumerated
some names and the amount he allegedly received from them as the share of
the loot. He was not even aware of the quantity of metals brought out of the
plant. Even clarificatory questions were not answered squarely because
Berezo had no knowledge of them (pp. 27-33, Rec). As the Honorable Labor
Arbiter aptly put it, the evidence comes from a polluted source because the
circumstances as to how the confession came about were not explained.
“It was established that the company premises were heavily guarded
considering the nature of petitioner’s operations, so that each section was
guarded by a Linsi security guard who would routinely inspect the body of
any person who got in and out of any section in the premises especially in
the dore section where the precious metals are refined and stored. It is
inconceivable that private respondent could just bring out dore metals
without being detected since they have to pass several guards equipped with
technically efficient metal devices before they could reach the main gate
where all employees are frisked and/or bodily inspected by another team of
security guards. Moreover, plant operators have supervisors who also
routinely inspect all operators under them before they could leave their
particular section (p. 23, TSN, Case No. 0234-86 or p. 100, Vilvar).
555
556
557
statement.
SO ORDERED.
Resolution modified.