G.R. No. 176893 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, JR., VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION THIRD DIVISION, MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, MANUEL LOPEZ, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, AND FRANCISCO COLLANTES, MANAGER.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Manila Electric Company is hereby ordered to take back within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, herein complainant Vicente Villanueva, Jr. to any substantially equivalent position not dependent on the use of CMS, or by payroll reinstatement, at the option of the former, without loss of seniority rights but without backwages. Complainants prayer for damages is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. [11] [Emphasis supplied] Ruling of the NLRC In its Resolution [12] dated November 30, 2004, the NLRC Third Division reversed the ruling of the LA and declared Villanuevas dismissal as valid. It held that Villanuevas vehement denial of the offense could not stand against substantial evidence on record pointing to his guilt. Absent any suspicion of ill motive against Villanueva, the sworn statements of the customers had bearing that could not be ignored. Worse, Villanueva never presented proof that he indeed reported his overages to his superiors. Santos likewise discredited him for this. With respect to the propriety of the penalty of dismissal, the NLRC refused to appreciate the mitigating circumstances outlined by the LA in Villanuevas favor. Instead, it found Villanueva liable for dishonesty, warranting his dismissal on the ground of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of Labor Arbiter a quo dated June 30, 2004 is hereby ordered VACATED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered declaring complainants dismissal from service as VALID and JUSTIFIED. All other claims are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. [13] Ruling of the Court of Appeals After having filed his Motion for Reconsideration, [14] Villanueva moved for the execution of the LAs decision alleging that while he had been reinstated in the payroll of Meralco effective July 16, 2004, he was not given the full benefits to which he was entitled prior to his dismissal, like one (1) sack of rice per month and bonuses for two (2) months. Consequently, the LA ordered the issuance of a Writ of Execution and Alias Writ of Execution on February 15, 2005. [15] On June 20, 2006, the NLRC denied Villanuevas motion for reconsideration rendering its decision as final. [16] On appeal to the CA, Villanuevas petition was dismissed. The CA ruled that Meralco had established just cause for the dismissal of Villanueva by substantial evidence of his fraudulent and dishonest acts resulting in the loss of trust and confidence that Meralco had reposed on him. The CA said: There can be no dispute that as Branch Representative petitioner occupies a position of trust and confidence. He transacts daily with applicants for new and reactivated electric service connections and directly receives from them amounts intended for the required deposit charges. Indeed utmost honesty is expected of petitioner in the discharge of his functions not only because of his duty to handle funds belon