PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. NLRC

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 102411 - August 10, 1993

FACTS:

The case at bar had its beginning in a robbery committed against a Japanese national identified as Akira Saikyo, a passenger on a Philippine Airlines (PAL) flight bound for Singapore on November 13, 1984. While the aircraft was still at the Manila International Airport, his attaché case was forcibly opened and from it was taken some money: Y500,000.00 and US $400.00.

According to witnesses, security guard Francis P. Dagui was seen possessing and counting some dollar bills. These activities were reported to Supervisor Dimapinto T. Limbona who in turn promptly reported it to his supervisors, Lt. Magbanua, Col. Trinidad (PAL Security Coordinator) and Mr. Chiong (PAL Security). On the instruction of the latter, Limbona talked to Dagui about his possession of the foreign currency. Dagui admitted that he indeed has “20 pieces of 10,000-yen bills,” which was “part of his share given to him by some station loaders of PAL whom he named as Zapanta, Lopez and Ferrer;” and that he had seen that the three also had “several hundred dollar bills.” Dagui offered to give him P5,000.00 to keep silent. Limbona told his supervisors about this, and they then drew up a plan to entrap Dagui. Accordingly, Limbona went back to Dagui and suggested they talk at “the ICT Container Area.” There, Dagui handed Limbona an envelope – later discovered to contain P1,000.00 – saying it was part of the latter’s share to keep quiet. At that precise moment, PAL Security Agents Garcia and Chiong, and MISG Sgt. Fermin suddenly approached and arrested Dagui. Dagui was thereupon brought to the MISG Office at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, for investigation.

Under questioning, Dagui disclosed that a PAL employee by the name of Bonifacio Rodriguez had forcibly opened an attaché case and taken from it an envelope containing Japanese and American currency; that the money had thereafter been divided among Rodriguez, Dagui, and other PAL employees, including Dominador Zapanta, Cesar Lopez, Edgardo Ferrer, and Wilfredo R. Omar. Dagui also surrendered to the officers the sum of P8,550.00, representing the balance of his share.

The employees thus implicated, Zapanta, Lopez, Ferrer, and Omar, were also investigated at the MISG office, and on November 26, 1984, together with Dagui, they all signed and swore to a hand-written resignation letter. Dagui, Zapanta, Lopez, Ferrer and Omar were thereafter no longer allowed to work; and their joint resignation letter was eventually formally accepted on January 12, 1985. As regards Rodriguez, who unlike his fellow employees, had not opted to resign, administrative disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him.

About fourteen (14) months after their resignation, or on January 14, 1986, Ferrer, Zapanta, Lopez and Omar filed a complaint with the NLRC Arbitration Branch, claiming that they were coerced into signing the joint letter of resignation and had been dismissed by PAL from their employment without due investigation. On the ground of “lack of interest to prosecute their respective claims,” the complaint was dismissed as regards Omar and Lopez. The case proceeded to judgment only with respect to Ferrer and Zapanta. In the decision of the Arbiter dated April 25, 1990, PAL was ordered to reinstate the two (2) remaining complainants. This decision was, on appeal taken by PAL, affirmed by the NLRC by Resolution dated August 27, 1991. The Commission later denied PAL’s motion for reconsideration, by order dated October 16, 1991. Hence, the present special civil action of certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents were illegally dismissed or terminated by PAL.

RULING:

No.

In fine, if it be true, as respondents opine, that no cause at all existed for termination of the employees’ services, PAL’s acts make no sense whatever; if PAL did indeed know them to be innocent, what motive would it have to dismiss them? Were they saboteurs or vandals, or inefficient or lazy workers, etc.? No reason is given by respondents, none appears in the record, for PAL to concoct a case against the employees and invent an elaborate scenario – involving, it must be added, a conspiracy with military officers – to justify termination of their employment. Such a scenario is meaningless except in the context of the employee’s complicity in the forcible asportation of the Japanese national’s money.

Nor is any rational explanation given, and none is found in the record, why the private respondents chose to defer for more than a year the filing of their complaints for illegal dismissal, if it be true that they were insisting, immediately after they had executed their joint letter of resignation, on returning to work and being accorded their right to due process. The thought cannot be shrugged off that they had strong doubts of proving a cause of action for reinstatement and had opted first to seek employment elsewhere, and that it was only after this option had failed to yield the expected result that they had finally initiated the proceedings at bar.