Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Angol, Jr.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232970. October 13, 2021.]

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, petitioner, vs.BENIGNO P. ANGOL, JR., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 13, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 232970 (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Benigno P. Angol, Jr.). — This is a petition for review assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 17, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 144862, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated August 28, 2015 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), that found respondent Benigno P. Angol, Jr. (Angol) illegally dismissed from employment.

The facts are as follows:

Angol was employed by petitioner Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company as LHD (Load, Haul, Dump) Machine Operator, with a daily salary of P361.00. He was dismissed on March 10, 2014 on grounds of highgrading (as punished by petitioner's Code of Conduct), serious misconduct, and breach of trust and confidence. 3

Petitioner claimed that Angol was caught in the act of highgrading. This is because Mine Inspectors Leopoldo S. Long-a and John Mariñas positively saw a person, identified to be Angol, on top of a muck pile breaking or pounding stone ores using a sledgehammer. After breaking the ores, they saw Angol select stones and place them in a cellophane container and later position them at his left side. The mine inspectors stood up immediately to apprehend Angol. However, Angol saw them coming and slid down the slope to run, but Inspector Mariñas was quick enough to apprehend him. Inspector Long-a confronted Angol and asked why he escaped and Angol allegedly said, "di mabalin warningan dak pay" (please give me first a warning), but Long-a turned down his plea. The apprehending inspectors informed Angol of the highgrading offense he committed. He was invited to the Investigation Section of the Internal Operation Security Department where the sledgehammer he used for breaking the ores was deposited. 4 SETAcC

Thereafter, petitioner sent Angol a notice which duly informed him that: (1) an administrative case for highgrading, serious misconduct and breach of trust and confidence was filed against him; (2) he is requested to answer the charges within five (5) days from receipt thereof; (3) the administrative case shall be heard on February 7, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.; and (4) he is being placed on a 15-day suspension. 5

Petitioner stated that during the administrative hearing on February 7, 2014, Angol was duly assisted by union officers. Angol just denied the charges against him. On February 11, 2014, Angol submitted his Self-Explanation 6 denying the charges. 7

Petitioner found Angol's explanation in clearing himself of the offense of highgrading inadequate. On March 10, 2014, petitioner issued a Resolution 8 terminating Angol from his employment for having committed highgrading, which is penalized with dismissal for the first offense under petitioner's Code of Conduct. 9

On August 5, 2014, Angol filed a Complaint 10 for illegal dismissal against petitioner and its Chief Executive Officer, Felipe Yap. He prayed for reinstatement to his former position and payment of full backwages, damages and attorneys' fees. 11

In his Position Paper and Comment, 12 Angol asserted that petitioner's allegation that he was caught in the act of highgrading was not true. The truth of the matter, as corroborated by three credible witnesses for Angol, was that his supervisor recalled him back for work when he was about to exit after his shift. His shift boss, Warren Managtag, ordered him to help his companions, Cesario Gayadan, Jr. and Julius Sagayo, to haul ores at the second lift in order that the two late mine cars would be filled. 13

As attested to and corroborated by the statements of the three witnesses, it was not true that Angol was pounding gold ores when the mine inspectors chanced upon him. Instead, Angol was busy barring down loose rocks at the ceiling, then at the side of the panel for safety purposes. After barring down the loose rocks, Angol tried to break the big boulders using a sledgehammer. While he continued breaking the boulders, he suddenly slid down. Fortunately, the rocks did not fall on him. Angol then decided to pass on the other side, but Mine Inspector Long-a suddenly came on top of the muck pile. Long-a and Mariñas confiscated the sledgehammer, then Long-a asked where Angol went while instructing Mariñas to guard Gayadan, Jr. and Sagayo. Long-a walked for about three meters when he met Angol who was about to climb the muck pile. 14

In a Decision 15 dated May 15, 2015, the Labor Arbiter held that Angol was illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter stated that petitioner did not present clear and convincing evidence that Angol was guilty of the offense of highgrading. The only item confiscated from Angol was the sledgehammer he allegedly used in committing the offense, but the stone ores, which was the object of the offense, and the plastic with which the said ores were wrapped were not presented in evidence. Hence, the Labor Arbiter held that the bare allegations of the mine inspectors that Angol had committed highgrading were speculative. On the other hand, Angol's statements that he did not commit the offense of highgrading were confirmed by Angol's shift boss, Warren Managtag, and co-workers Gayadan, Jr. and Sagayo, who declared that what Angol was doing was pounding and barring stone ores to clear the area for a safer passage of the pounded stone ores to be hauled into the waiting wagon of the late train. 16 The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads: ITCcAD

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent jointly and severally liable to institute the following in favor of complainant Benigno P. Angol, Jr.:

1. Reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights;

2. Pay him his full backwages inclusive of appurtenant mandatory labor standard benefits from the time he was illegally dismissed up to his actual reinstatement, now in the total amount of — P147,002.20

 

"P361.00 x 26 d x 14.25mos.	=	P133,750.50
13th MP P133,750.50/12	=	11,145.85
SILP P361.00 x 5 d x 1 yr. & 2 mos.	=	2,105.85"
		–––––––––––

 

3. Pay him his service incentive leave pay and proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2014 — 2,226.15

 

"SILP 361.00 x 5 days x 3/12	=	P451.25
13th MP 361.00 x 59 days/12	=	1,774.90"
		–––––––––

 

4. Sub-total — 149,228.35

5. Add: Attorney's fees — 14,922.84

6. GRAND TOTAL — P164,151.19

All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 17

Petitioner appealed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC.

In a Decision 18 dated August 28, 2015, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. The NLRC found that aside from the bare allegations of Mine Inspectors Long-a and Mariñas, petitioner did not present any evidence to prove that Angol indeed committed highgrading. The NLRC held that the sledgehammer used by Angol does not, in any way, prove that he was collecting ores. Angol and his witnesses, Gayadan, Jr. and Sagayo, stated that the sledgehammer was used by Angol to break the boulders on top of the muck pile for easier hauling, thus, justifying Angol's possession and use of the sledgehammer. Angol's presence in the area where he was apprehended was explained by his shift boss, Warren Managtag, who confirmed that it was he who instructed complainant to work in the said area. Although petitioner claimed that the mine inspectors were unable to confiscate the ores allegedly collected by Angol as he spilled the same before he was apprehended, the cellophane where Angol supposedly placed the ores he collected was not presented in evidence. The NLRC also noted that petitioner did not refute Angol's allegation that the mine inspectors receive merits for every apprehension they make. However, the NLRC found no basis to hold Felipe Yap personally liable for Angol's dismissal, as there was no showing that he acted with malice or bad faith. 19 The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the May 15, 2015 decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that only respondent Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company is held liable to pay the judgment award. All other dispositions stay.

SO ORDERED. 20

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in (1) affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter; and (2) finding that the mine inspectors' allegation that Angol was caught in the act of highgrading was based on suspicion and speculation, which is contrary to the evidence on record. 21

Petitioner maintained that Angol's apprehension for highgrading was not based on mere suspicion or speculation. Petitioner insisted that as LHD Machine Operator, Angol was not authorized to have in his possession or use a sledgehammer in breaking or pounding stone ores. Petitioner explained that the mine inspectors were not able to confiscate the wrapped selected ores because when Angol noticed the presence of the mine inspectors, he quickly spilled its contents on the muck pile and escaped towards the inner portion of the panel. Hence, the only piece of evidence retrieved from Angol was the sledgehammer used for pounding ores. Petitioner claimed that the mine inspectors caught Angol in flagrante delicto. 22 aHECST

The CA upheld the Decision of the NLRC.

The CA disagreed that the mine inspectors caught Angol in flagrante delicto. It pronounced:

Highgrading, under petitioner's Code of Conduct is committed by means of:

A) concealing highgrade material/ore in his person without proper authority.

B) Possessing highgrade material while inside company premises without proper authority.

C) Unauthorized extraction of ore in a manner not consistent with his normal work, i.e., breaking, pounding, panning, sluicing, washing or segregating highgrade materials with cellophane and/or burlap sheets.

Private respondent was dismissed based on the statement of mine inspectors Long-A and Mari[ñ]as, who allegedly saw private respondent on top of a muck pile pounding stone ores. After breaking the ores, said mine inspectors allegedly saw private respondent placing the same in a cellophane container placed at the latter's left side. Private respondent allegedly attempted to escape when he noticed that he was being observed by Long-A and Mari[ñ]as, but Long-A was able to intercept and arrest private respondent. The mine inspectors were able to confiscate private respondent's sledgehammer.

We agree with the common findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter that the foregoing, without any other evidence that private respondent was harvesting ores, does not suffice to find private respondent guilty of highgrading. This is especially so in light of the sworn statements of his coworkers. Casario L. Gayadan, Jr. ("Gayadan") and Julius Sagayo ("Sagayo") attested to the fact that private respondent, contrary to the speculations of the mine inspectors, was barring down loose rocks at the ceiling and at the side of the panel for safety purposes. After barring down the rocks, private respondent allegedly tried to break the big boulders using a sledgehammer.

Judicial review of decisions of the NLRC via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined only to issues of lack or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court under which the petition was brought to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusions, the query being limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its resolution, except if the findings of the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence. We find no such grave abuse of discretion in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 23

Petitioner filed this petition alleging that:

(1) The CA violated petitioner's inherent right under the law to discipline its employees, including terminating their employment for just causes, when it dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari; EHACcT

(2) Petitioner correctly exercised its management prerogative to enforce discipline among its employees when it dismissed respondent Angol for just causes: (a) respondent Angol committed highgrading, as defined and penalized under petitioner's code of conduct; and (b) respondent Angol's action also constitutes serious misconduct and breach of trust and confidence, just causes for dismissal under the Labor Code;

(3) By dismissing the petition for certiorari, the CA affirmed in toto the baseless assumption of the NLRC that the mine inspectors were to receive awards, merits, and promotion for apprehending respondent Angol. Said assumption is contrary to the unrebutted general presumption of good faith and regularity in the conduct of work of security guards; and

(4) Considering that respondent Angol was dismissed for just causes, he is not entitled to reinstatement, payment of backwages and benefits, and attorney's fees. 24

The main issue is whether the NLRC erred in affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter that Angol was illegally dismissed.

The Court's Ruling

In a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of the Supreme Court's judicial review of decisions of the CA is generally confined only to errors of law; questions of fact are not entertained. 25 The general rule is that factual findings of labor officials are conclusive and binding when supported by substantial evidence. 26 The findings of fact of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence that is manifest in the decision and on the records. 27 The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to delve into the accuracy of their factual findings, in the absence of a clear showing that the same were arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis. 28

In this case, the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, show that:

(1) Petitioner did not present substantial evidence that Angol was guilty of the offense of highgrading.

Highgrading, under petitioner's Code of Conduct, is committed by means of: (a) concealing highgrade material/ore in his person without proper authority; (b) possessing highgrade material while inside company premises without proper authority; and (c) unauthorized extraction of ore in a manner not consistent with his normal work, i.e., breaking, pounding, panning, sluicing, washing or segregating highgrade materials with cellophane and/or burlap sheets. 29

The only item confiscated from Angol was the sledgehammer he allegedly used in committing the offense, but the stone ores, which were the object of the offense, and the plastic with which the said ores were allegedly wrapped were not presented in evidence;

(2) Angol's statements that he did not commit the offense of highgrading were corroborated by three witnesses. Angol's shift boss confirmed that it was he who instructed Angol to work in the said area. Angol's co-workers, Gayadan, Jr. and Sagayo, attested to what Angol was doing at that time: he was barring down loose rocks at the ceiling, then at the side of the panel for safety purposes. After barring down the loose rocks, Angol tried to break the big boulders using a sledgehammer. 30

Clearly, the claim of petitioner that Angol was validly dismissed due to highgrading is unmeritorious, considering the common factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA that there is no substantial evidence that Angol committed highgrading. Hence, the Court sustains the decision of the CA with modification in that legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on the monetary award granted to Angol in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 31

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 17, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 144862, upholding the Decision dated August 28, 2015 of the National Labor Relations Commission, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as follows: EacHCD

As respondent Benigno P. Angol, Jr. was illegally dismissed, petitioner is ORDERED to:

1. REINSTATE respondent Angol to his former position without loss of seniority rights;

2. PAY respondent Angol his full backwages, inclusive of appurtenant mandatory labor standard benefits from the time he was illegally dismissed up to his actual reinstatement; and

3. PAY respondent Angol his service incentive leave pay and proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2014 in the amount of P2,226.15, plus attorney's fees in the amount of P14,922.84.

The monetary awards herein granted shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum computed from date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring; rollo, pp. 7-17.

2.Rollo, pp. 182-194.

3.Id. at 183.

4.Id. at 152.

5.Id. at 152, 183-184.

6. CA rollo, p. 199.

7.Rollo, pp. 152-153, 185.

8. CA rollo, p. 78.

9.Rollo, p. 153.

10. CA rollo, p. 241.

11.Rollo, p. 187.

12. CA rollo, pp. 163-174.

13.Rollo, p. 153.

14.Id. at 153-154.

15.Id. at 151-157.

16.Id. at 154-155.

17.Id. at 157.

18.Id. at 182-194.

19.Id. at 191-193.

20.Id. at 193-194.

21.Id. at 13-14.

22.Id. at 14-15.

23.Id. at 15-17. (Citations omitted)

24.Id. at 57-58.

25.Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 310, 317 (2001).

26.Ventis Maritime Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 588 Phil. 766, 772 (2008).

27.Grand Placement & General Services Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 516 Phil. 541, 554 (2006).

28.Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, supra note 25, at 318.

29. CA rollo, p. 202.

30.Rollo, pp. 15-16.

31.Noblado v. Alfonso, 773 Phil. 271, 287 (2015), citing Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove and/or Sr. Edna Quiambao, 752 Phil. 186, 220 (2015), citing Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 725 Phil. 41, 64-65 (2014); and Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).