FIRST DIVISION their dismissal under Art. 282, subpars.

(a) and (c), of the Labor

Code.
[G.R. No. 82467. June 29, 1989.]

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE DECISION

NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO B. DELEN,
FELIPE P. MERCADO, ROGELIO Z. MISOLAS, GRIÑO-AQUINO, J : p

HENRY S. LOGAN & EFREN M. QUERUBIN,

respondents. This is a petition for review under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court of the resolution dated December 15, 1987 of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for petitioner. NRC Case No. 6-2896-83, entitled "Pedro Delen, Felipe Mercado,
Rogelio Z. Misolas,
Mildred A. Ramos for private respondents.
Henry S. Logan, Efren Querubin, Complainants versus San Miguel
Corporation, Respondent," dismissing the appeal of the respondent
SYLLABUS corporation (now petitioner) and a rming in toto the decision dated
March 17, 1986 of the Labor Arbiter, Ceferina J. Diosana, who found
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; COURT EN BANC, that the complaints (herein private respondents) were illegally
NOT AN APPELLATE COURT WITHIN THE SUPREME dismissed by the petitioner, and directed the latter "to reinstate them
COURT; REFERRAL OF A CASE TO THE EN BANC, RESTS to their former positions without loss of seniority right and with full
ENTIRELY ON THE DISCRETION OF THE DIVISION. — The backwages and other bene ts appurtenant to their respective
Court En Banc is not an appellate court within the Supreme Court to positions" (Annex I). prcd

which parties may appeal decisions of the We dismissed the petition on April 11, 1988 on the ground
Division, for it is the same Supreme Court, and the referral of a case that it failed to show that the NLRC had acted with grave abuse of
by a Division to the En Banc rests entirely in the discretion of the discretion in rendering its questioned resolution (p. 311, Rollo). The
Division. petitioner's motion for reconsideration was prematurely denied by Us
2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; on August 29, 1988 (p. 416, Rollo). At that time, We inadvertently
EMPLOYMENT; TERMINATION; FALSIFICATION AND overlooked the fact that the petitioner had led an omnibus motion on
FRAUD, LAWFUL GROUNDS. — The falsi cation and fraud which August 24, 1988: (1) for leave to le a reply to private respondents'
the private respondents committed against their employer were comment; and (2) to require private respondents to furnish petitioner
inexcusable. Major Asaytuno's initials on the false entries in their a copy of page 5 of their comment (p. 345, Rollo). The petitioner's
time cards did not purge the documents of their falsity. Their acts consolidated reply to the separate comments led by the NLRC and
constituted dishonesty and serious misconduct, lawful grounds for the private respondents (pp. 335-343 and 349-415, Rollo) was led on

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 September 21, 1988 (p. 417, Rollo). On October 14, 1988, the believed that his invitation was equivalent to a command (p. 229,
petitioner led an "Extremely Urgent Rollo). Being an army man, Asaytuno expected "total obedience"
Motion for Leave of Court En Banc to File Appeal En Banc." (p. from his subordinates (p. 229, Rollo). The complainants and
479, Rollo.) Asaytuno left the o ce at 2:00 P.M. on February 19, 1983 and tarried
While it is necessary to disabuse the mind of the petitioner of in Batangas up to February 20. Asaytuno signed four (4) sets of
overtime authority for February 19-20 so that the private respondents
the impression that the Court En Banc is an appellate court within
could collect overtime pay (p. 230, Rollo). When they reported for
the Supreme Court to which parties may appeal decisions of the
work on February 21, 1983, Major Asaytuno asked for their time
Division, for it is the same Supreme Court, and the referral of a case
cards and initialed the false entries showing that they reported for
by a Division to the En Banc rests entirely in the discretion of the
work on February 19-20 (p. 230, Rollo). The Labor Arbiter held that
Division, We have decided to deny the plea for referral of this case so
under those circumstances "the dismissal of the complainants cannot
the Court En Banc, but instead, to treat the "appeal to the Court En be sustained" (p. 230, Rollo).
Banc" (p. 479, Rollo) as a second motion for reconsideration of the
resolutions of this Court dated April 11, 1988 and August 29, 1988. With regard to the charge that complainants Misolas and
Querubin dishonestly punched the time cards of Delen and others, the
The complainants were former security guards of the Labor Arbiter found "material discrepancies in the testimony of the
petitioner which dismissed them for falsi cation of their time cards. petitioner's principal witness, Security Guard Romeo Martin, and
They made false entries in their time cards showing that they rejected his evidence as 'questionable"' (p. 231, Rollo). The Labor
reported for work on February 19 and 20, 1983 when the truth was Arbiter directed the company "to reinstate the complainants to their
that they went on a hunting trip to San Juan, Batangas, with their respective former positions without loss of seniority rights and with
chief, Major Martin full backwages and other bene ts appurtenant to their respective
Asaytuno, then head of the Administrative Services Department of positions" (p. 232, Rollo) but dismissed the complainants' claim for
the Security Directorate of the petitioner. damages for lack of merit (p. 233, Rollo).
Besides the falsi cation of the entries for February 19 and 20, The petitioner appealed to the NLRC, Third Division, which
1983 in their time cards, complainant Misolas was caught red-handed in a resolution dated December 15, 1987 (Annex K), dismissed the
by Security Guard Romeo Martin at 7:45 A.M. on March 2, 1983 appeal for lack of merit and a rmed the appealed judgment (p. 269,
punching-in not only his own time card but also the time cards of Rollo). The petitioner led a motion for reconsideration which the
Delen and Querubin (p. 51, Rollo). Seeing Misolas in a tight x, NLRC denied on March 10, 1988 (Annex N).
Querubin rushed to the bundy clock and punched in a time card
(which turned out to be the card of one Rodrigo de Castro) to save The company led a petition for review in this Court on March
Misolas and to make it appear to Martin that he (Querubin), punched 25, 1988, alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
in his own time card. cdrep discretion in upholding the Labor Arbiter's decision and "in not nding
that the private respondents were guilty of serious misconduct, fraud,
On the basis of the evidence, the Labor Arbiter found that the and willful breach of trust" (p. 14, Rollo) which warranted their
complainants did go on a hunting trip to San Juan, Batangas on dismissal from the service.
February 19 and 20, 1983, upon the invitation of their department
head, Major Asaytuno. They went along to please him because they

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 As the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC adverted him to falsify their time cards and thereby defraud the company by
to the testimony of Major Asaytuno as a witness for the company, but collecting wages for the dates when they did not report for work.
were silent regarding any disciplinary action that the company took
against him, and as the petitioner admittedly put him on the witness "In order for obedience to be considered as an
stand "to clear his name," and considered him a "victim of his exempting circumstance . . .
friendship with the complainants" (p. 19, Rollo), this Court was it must be in compliance with a lawful order not opposed
misled to believe that the company let Asaytuno, the "big sh" go, but to a higher positive duty of the subaltern, and that the
penalized the "little sh" (his subordinates) for the misconduct that person commanding act within the scope of his authority.
they all committed. Since We could not sanction that brand of As a general rule, an inferior should obey his superior. But
selective justice, We dismissed the petition for review. between a general law which enjoins obedience to a
superior giving just orders, etc., and a prohibitive law
However, after a more careful consideration of the pleadings which plainly forbids what the superior commands, the
and their annexes, We found these statements in paragraph 19 of the choice is not doubtful." (Viada, I Penal Code 528, 5th Ed.;
petition for certiorari and in Annex J of the petition (petitioner's People vs. Barroga, 54 Phil. 247).
Appeal Memorandum in the NLRC): llcd

"In order to be exempted (on the ground of

"19. After a thorough and impartial investigation obedience) it must be shown that both the person who gives
conducted both by the Security and Legal Directorate of the order and the person who executes it are acting within
the petitioner, private respondents, together with Major the limitations prescribed by law." (People vs. Wilson, 52
Asaytuno, were found to have committed serious Phil. 919.)
irregularities in the performance of their duties.
Accordingly, they were dismissed from the service and The falsi cation and fraud which the private respondents
termination letters were respectively served on them." (p. committed against
11, Rollo.)
their employer were inexcusable. Major Asaytuno's initials on the
"16. . . . all the ve (5) complainants together with false entries in their time cards did not purge the documents of their
Major Asaytuno were found to have committed serious falsity. Their acts constituted dishonesty and serious misconduct,
irregularities in the performance of their duties. lawful grounds for their dismissal under Art. 282, subpars. (a) and
Accordingly, they were dismissed from the service and (c), of the Labor Code, which provides:
termination letters were respectively served on them." (p.
243, Rollo.) "ART. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may
terminate an employment for any of the following just
We, therefore, now resolve to grant the petitioner's second causes:
motion for reconsideration, for, although it may be conceded that the
private respondents acted under some degree of moral compulsion "(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the
when they agreed to accompany Major Asaytuno on a hunting trip to employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work.
San Juan, Batangas, they were certainly under no compulsion from

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx
"(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative."
The NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the
reinstatement of the private respondents to their positions with
backwages. Its decision was an unjusti ed departure from the rule
that:
"An employer cannot legally be compelled to
continue with the employment of a person who admittedly
was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his
employer, and whose continuance in the service of the
latter is patently inimical to his interests. The law, in
protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither
oppression nor self destruction of the employer." (Manila
Trading & Supply Co. vs. The Hon. Francisco Zulueta, et
al., 69 Phil. 485, cited in San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs.
National Labor Union, et al., 97 Phil. 387.)
LLphil

WHEREFORE, our resolutions dated April 11, 1988 and

August 29, 1988 are hereby recalled and the petition for certiorari is
granted. The decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in NLRC-
NCR Case No. 6-2896-83 are hereby set aside. The private
respondents' complaint for illegal dismissal and reinstatement with
backwages and damages is dismissed. Costs against the private
respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com