G.R. No. 184011 - REYNALDO HAYAN MOYA, VS. FIRST SOLID RUBBER INDUSTRIES, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED . The Resolutions dated January 31, 2007 and April 24, 2007 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CA No. 048653-06 (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-12626-2004) affirming the Decision dated February 28, 2006 of the Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu[,] Jr. is MODIFIED by deleting the award for separation pay in favor of private respondent Reynaldo Hayan Moya. [3] The facts as gathered by this Court follow: On 25 January 2005, Moya filed before the NLRC-National Capital Region a complaint for illegal dismissal against First Solid Rubber Industries, Inc. (First Solid) and its President Edward Lee Sumulong. In his complaint-affidavit, [4] Moya alleged that: 1. Sometime in May 1993, he was hired by the company First Solid, a business engaged in manufacturing of tires and rubbers, as a machine operator; 2. Through years of dedication to his job, he was promoted as head of the Tire Curing Department of the company; 3. On October 15, 2004, he reported an incident about an undercuring of tires within his department which led to the damage of five tires; 4. The company conducted an investigation of the incident and he was later required to explain; 5. In his explanation, he stated that the damage was caused by machine failure and the incident was without any fault of the operator; 6. Despite his explanation of what transpired, he was terminated by the company through a letter dated November 9, 2004. From the foregoing, he prayed that payment of backwages, separation pay, moral damages and exemplary damages be adjudged in his favor due to the illegal dismissal he suffered from the company. Moya, through his Reply, [5] added that his termination fell short of any of the just causes of serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duties and willful breach of trust. He pointed out that the company failed to prove that his act fell within the purview of improper or wrong misconduct, and that a single act of negligence as compared to eleven (11) years of service of good record with the company will not justify his dismissal. First Solid, in its Position Paper, [6] Reply [7] and Memorandum, [8] admitted that Moya was a former employee of the company and was holding the position of Officer-in-Charge of the Tire Curing Department until his valid dismissal. However, it denied that it illegally dismissed Moya and maintained that his severance from the company was due to a valid exercise of management prerogative. [9] The company insisted on its right to validly dismiss an employee in good faith if it has a reasonable ground to believe that its employee is responsible of misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. [10] Opposing the story of Moya, the company countered that Moya, who was exercising supervision and control over the employees as a department head, failed to exercise the diligence requ