San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No.

87277, May 12, 1989

FACTS: Fernando M. Almonicar, a Route Helper of San Miguel Corporation in Cotabato City, agreed to
a proposition by Andulkadil dumambato to transfer to his account the 100 cases of empty regular
beer bottles and 100 cases of empty Beer Grande bottles worth P3,340.00, which were returned
allegedly for cash refund by Dumamba’s customer, but that Dumamba did not have sufficient
sales/collections for the refund. A sytem done around, which was a common practice. However,
it turned out not be cash refunds but a customer’s credit, which was not included in Dumamba’s
sale’s report, which thenafter resulted to a recommendation for grounding and further
investigation. An investigation was later on made in connection to some of Dumamba’s several
acts of alleged dafalcation. Almonicar did to, gave a a statement about Dumamba’s acts, to his
Regional Manager Romeo A. Reyes. Dumamba was grounded from his post, and Almonicar was
supposed to get a promotion, but later on was given a letter of dismissal without information
about the causes for termination.

Almonicar filed on October 16, 1982 a complaint for illegal dismissal with the help from Labor
Ministry’s Regional Office in Cotabato City, was later on indorsed for compulsory arbitration to
the Executive Labor Arbiter in Cagayan de Oro City. Executive Labor Arbiter then later on
dismissed the private respondent’s position paper,and was misled into appreciating petitioner’s
evidence presented for the first time on appeal, promulgated on December 10, 1985 a decision,
finding private respondent guilty of the offense imputed to him. So that, on a Motion for
Reconsideration filed by private respondent, the respondent Commission rectified its errors by
reversing and setting aside its previous decision of December 10, 1985 and instead, promulgated
on March 30, 1987 another decision.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the termination of the private respondent was done with due process
2. Whether or not the Executive Labor Arbiter abused his discretion and erred in his findings late

Ruling:
1. The petitioner’s claim for abuse of discretion from the Executive Labor Arbiter has made the
Almonicar’s position not valid, and was guilty of the petitioner’s claims
2. The Motion for Reconsideration sought the clean record of Almonicar, and that leaded to the
reversing and setting aside of previous decision. ordered to reinstate complainant to his former
position with full backwages with all of the benefits legal and by contract and without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges, computed from the date of his dismissal up to his actual
reinstatement. Consequently, respondent is directed to show proof of immediate compliance to
the mandate of the decision after ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution.