MEL CARPIZO CANDELARIA, Petitioner,

vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 209386, December 8, 2014

FACTS

Viron Transit Corporation ordered 14,000 liters of diesel fuel from Unioil, a company owned by
private complainant Lao. Petitioner Mel Carpizo Candelaria, a truck driver employed by Lao, was
dispatched to deliver the diesel fuel in Laon Laan, Manila.

However, in the afternoon of the same day, Viron informed Lao through a phone call that it had
not yet received its order.

In the evening of the same day, Romano returned alone to Unioil’s office and reported that
Candelaria poked a balisong at him, prompting Lao to report the incident to the police.

After a few days, the NBI agents found the abandoned lorry truck in Calamba, Laguna, emptied of
the diesel fuel.

Lao filed a complaint for Qualified Theft against Candelaria.

In his defense, Candelaria demurred to the prosecution’s evidence, arguing that there was no
direct evidence that linked him to the commission of the crime, as Lao had no personal knowledge as to
what actually happened to the diesel fuel.

The RTC convicted Candelaria of Qualified Theft

The CA affirmed Candelaria’s conviction. Citing jurisprudence, it observed that theft by a truck
driver who takes the load of his truck belonging to his employer is guilty of Qualified Theft.

ISSUE

WON the CA correctly found Candelaria guilty of the crime of Qualified Theft.

RULING

The petition is bereft of merit.

The elements of Qualified Theft, punishable under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the
RPC, as amended, are:

(a) the taking of personal property;

(b) the said property belongs to another;

(c) the said taking be done with intent to gain;

(d) it be done without the owner’s consent;

(e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force
upon things; and
 (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with
grave abuse of confidence.

In this case, there is a confluence of all the foregoing elements. Through the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, it was sufficiently established that the 14,000 liters of diesel fuel loaded into the
lorry truck driven by Candelaria for delivery to Viron was taken by him, without the authority and consent
of Lao, the owner of the diesel fuel, and that Candelaria abused the confidence reposed upon him by
Lao,as his employer.

The RTC, as correctly affirmed by the CA, found that the attendant circumstances in this case, as
duly established by the prosecution’s evidence, amply justify the conviction of Candelaria under the
evidentiary threshold of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Candelaria did not proffer any persuasive reason to explain the loss of said goods and merely
banked on a general denial, which, as case law holds, is an inherently weak defense due to the ease by
which it can be concocted. Thus, all things considered, Candelaria’s conviction for the crime of Qualified
Theft stands.

DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,

G.R. No. L-55413, 25 July 1983.

FACTS

Alfredo Tarroza, Rogelio de la Peña and Loreto Tejero ("Respondents") were light-wheel tractor
operators in the pineapple field of Dole Philippines, Inc ("Dolefil").

On April 29, 1977, landguards of Dolefil spotted two drums containing crude oil in the farmlot of
Inocencio Asibal which adjoins Dolefil's pineapple field.

Asibal and companion Rogelio Odarve were investigated by the police and stated in their sworn
statements that they bought the crude oil from Respondents and two other Dolefil employees.

Respondents and their two co-employees were charged with qualified theft in the municipal
court.

While those cases were pending, Dolefil filed with the Department of Labor an application for
clearance to terminate the employment of Respondents for "stealing or dishonesty," which was granted.
 Eight months later, the municipal court of acquitted Respondents of qualified theft while the two
other Dolefil employees were convicted of qualified theft.

After that decision, Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for reinstatement with
backwages against Dolefil.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and declared as valid, lawful and for a just cause the
termination from employment of Respondents. The NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE
WON Dolefil is justified in dismissing Respondents.

RULING

Yes. An employer may terminate an employment for "serious misconduct" or for "fraud or willful
breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or representative".

Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond reasonable doubt of
the employee's misconduct. It is enough that there be some basis for such loss of confidence or that the
employer has reasonable grounds to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and that
the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded by his position.

The eventual conviction of an employee who is prosecuted for his misconduct is not
indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer.

On the other hand, the acquittal of an employee in the criminal case filed against him by his
employer does not also guarantee his reinstatement if the employer has lost confidence in him.

A company has the right to dismiss its erring employees if only as a measure of self-protection
against acts inimical to its interest.

GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES, INC., EDUARDO P. FRANCISCO and WILLIAM HOW, Petitioners,
vs.
WILFREDO GALVEZ, JOEL SALES, CRISTITO GRUTA, DANILO ARGUELLES, RENATO
BATAYOLA, PATRICIO FRESMILLO,* JOVY NOBLE, EMILIO DOMINICO, BENNY NILMAO, and
JOSE AUSTRAL, Respondents.

G.R. No. 178184; January 29, 2014

FACTS

Petitioner Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc (GASLI) is a domestic corporation engaged in
transporting liquified petroleum gas (LPG) from Petron’s refinery in Bataan to Pasig and
Cavite.Respondents are crewmembers of one of GASLI’s vessels, M/T Dorothy Uno.
 On January 2000, Richard Abis (vessel’s oiler) reported to GASLI an alleged illegal activity being
committed by respondent who would misdeclare the consume fuel in the Engineer’s Voyage Reports and
the save fuel oil were sold to other vessel out at sea (at nighttime). Profits would be divided amongst
themselves.

After investigation, from the period of June 30, 1999 to Feb 15, 2000 the fuel it consumption was
overrate by 6,954.3 liters amounting to 74,737.86.

Acting upon the anomaly, GASLI placed respondents under preventive suspension and after
conducting administrative hearings decided to terminate them for breach of trust, commission of crime
against employer.

Respondents filed with the NLRC separate complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal,
underpayment/nonpayment of salaries/wages, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day,
service incentive pay, tax refunds and indemnities for damages and attorney’s fees against petitioner.

On August 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered decision finding the dismissal of 21 complainants
to be illegal. Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal with Motion to Reduce Bond before the NLRC citing
economic depression, legality of termination, and compliance with labor standards. NLRC denied
petitioner’s motion to reduce bond and directed an additional bond.

Despite petitioner’s failure the pay the bond, NLRC found the appeal meritorious and ruled for
petitioners. Stating that the dismissal was valid with the exception of Sales. NLRC struck down the
monetary awards given by the Labor Arbiter as they were based on computations made by respondents.

On appeal to the CA, the court ruled in favor of respondent stating that the NLRC’s decision had
jurisdictional error since petitioner did not comply with the additional bond.

ISSUE

1. WON the CA erred in holding that respondents were illegally dismissed

2. WON the CA erred when it concluded petitioner were not able to perfect the appeal of the Labor
Arbitrer’s decision

RULING

1. No, the CA did not commit any error in finding that respondent’s were illegally dismissed. According
to the termination notice, respondents were dismissed based on the grounds of (a) serious misconduct
(b) engaging in pilferage wile navigating at sea (c) willful breach of the trust reposed by the company (d)
commission of a crime against their employer. After examination of the evidence, the court finds that
petitioners failed to substantiate the charges of pilferage against respondents. The quantum of proof that
should be presented is substantial evidence. Mere filing of formal charge does not automatically make
dismissal valid. The affidavit executed simply contained accusations while allegations remained
uncorroborated. Also there is no sufficient evidence to show respondents participation in the commission
of the crime.

Respondent’s termination due to loss of trust and confidence should have a distinction between
managerial and rank and file employees. Rank-and-file employees require proof of involvement while
managerial employees mere existence of a basis for belief is sufficient. Given that Galvez and Gruta have
managerial positions there is some basis for the loss of employer’s confidence—regarding the
overstatement of fuel consumption without any evidence to the contrary. While the others, who are
ordinary rank and file employees, were not proven to have any involvement in the loss of the vessel’s
fuel. Rendering their dismissals illegal. The employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases
thus the employer must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal.

With regard to the contention of the Labor Arbiter’s Authority to impose the penalty of double
indemnity for violations of the Minimum Wage Law. Petitioner’s contention is untenable since there is no
provision in RA 6727 or RA 8188 that precludes that labor from imposing the penalty of double indemnity
against employers. Article 217 of the Labor Code gives the labor arbiter jurisdiction over cases of
termination disputes and those cases accompanied with a claim of reinstatement.

The Labor arbiter erred in awarding damages by lumping, moral, actual, and exemplary damages.
These should rest on different jural foundations and must independently identified and justified.

Glaze and Gruta, as managerial employees, are not entitled to claims for holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay and premium pay for holiday and restday—according to Art. 82 of the Labor Code.
The same way the other rank-and-file employees cannot be classified as field personnel under Article 82
of the Labor Code. According to Article 82, “non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties
away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of
work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.” Here, respondents remain inside a
vessel and were constantly supervised under effective control of a ship captain. Also they cannot claim to
be entitled of these because they have already been paid all the days of the month, which include
benefits. As for the overtime pay and premium pay for holiday and restday, no evidence was presented to
prove that they worked in excess of the regular working hours. For their claim of service incentive leave
pay, respondents did not specify what year they were not paid—in accordance with Art. 95.

2. Yes, the CA erred in holding that there was no compliance on the part of petitioner regarding the
appeal bonds. According to Art. 223 of the Labor Code, the posting of a bond, either in cash or surety,
must be in the amount equivalent to them entry award.

Nonetheless, the court held that rules should not be applied in a very rigid and strict sense—the
same in labor cases were substantial merits serve the interest of justice. In this case, the petitioner
appeals from the awarding of 7,104,483.84 to respondents and only complied with the posting of 500,000
PHP. We find this to be in substantial compliance with the Labor Code.