FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230294. June 6, 2019.]
THE RED SYSTEMS COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs.ROBERT D. POSADAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230294 (THE RED SYSTEMS COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. ROBERT D. POSADAS, Respondent.) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the decision 1 promulgated on December 29, 2016 and resolution 2 dated February 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144121 for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show any reversible error on the part of the CA in setting aside the decision 3 rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on September 30, 2015, declaring the dismissal of herein respondent as valid. HTcADC
The Court agrees with the CA that while the petitioner presented pictures of the truck and submitted affidavits of its managers, the same failed to support the respondent's termination based on his alleged stealing of diesel fuel. The CA pertinently held:
It must be stressed that petitioner was not caught in the act of stealing the subject diesel fuel from his truck's fuel tank. Private respondent TRCI presented pictures of the truck with diesel fuel dripping from its trailer, as well as a picture of its fuel tank which had no cover, and a Joint Affidavit dated June 4, 2012 of Evelyn Briones and Peejay Dayrit, employees of private respondent TRCI who allegedly discovered the supposedly stolen diesel fuel inside the trailer of petitioner's truck. But these pieces of evidence do not at all support private respondent's claim that petitioner committed theft of company property.
Petitioner was inside the canteen in Lubao, Pampanga when he was alerted by another driver, Hector Quisora, that TRCI employees were taking pictures of his truck. This was supported by affidavits executed by Hector Quisora and petitioner's helper Christian Congcong that petitioner was with them inside the canteen when the incident occurred. It was only when petitioner was directed to open the trucks' trailer that he and the other TRCI employees found the two (2) containers filled with diesel fuel.
Significantly, during the investigation conducted on March 1, 2012, petitioner was consistent in asserting that he did not know how the containers of diesel fuel ended up inside his trucks' trailer. On the other hand, private respondents failed to present witnesses who can categorically state that they saw petitioner stealing diesel fuel from his truck's fuel tank.
Private respondents thus failed to prove that petitioner was involved in or had the intention of stealing company property. In view of this, petitioner's denial should not be regarded as fabricated, for if a person is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but denial. 4
Hence, we fail to find any cogent reason to depart from the findings of the CA. In termination cases, the burden is upon the employer to show by substantial evidence that the termination was for lawful cause and validly made. 5 Herein petitioner failed to discharge that burden to substantially prove the validity of its termination of the respondent from employment. CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition; AFFIRMS the December 29, 2016 decision and February 23, 2017 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144121; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay costs of suit.
SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 565-575.
2.Id. at 592-593.
3.Id. at 285-291; penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto.
4.Id. at 572-573.
5.Sy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 301, 310.