G.R. No. 130473 - ELIZABETH RAMOS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) LABOR ARBITER JOSE G. DE VERA AND U.S. EMBASSY FILIPINO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE (USECO) AND ITS PRESIDENT, MARVIN RAMOS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the complainants (petitioners) preventive suspension and dismissal from employment as just and valid and perforce the complaint for reinstatement/separation pay, moral damages and attorneys fees is dismissed for lack of merit. And on the complaint for unpaid salaries, the respondent company is hereby ordered to pay complainant the sum of P18,278.46." Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision [5] dated February 18, 1997, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter. USECOs first motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. [6] Undaunted, USECO filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration. [7] In its Resolution dated May 6, 1997, the NLRC granted the motion and reinstated the decision of the labor arbiter. [8] The relevant portion of the resolution reads: "x x x (w)e cannot blame respondents from suspending complainant (petitioner). Obviously, the provision of law for the immediate suspension of what is believed to be a dishonest employee is an appropriate measure of self-preservation, for the continuance in office of such an employee poses grave danger to the viability and continued existence of the cooperative. "In view of all the foregoing circumstances, we find that there is indeed justifiable cause for complainants dismissal on the ground of breach of trust. There can be no doubt that complainants continuance in the clearly sensitive and fiduciary position of Management Assistant would patently inimical to the cooperatives interest. It would be oppressive and unjust to order the respondent to take her back; for the law, in protecting the rights of the worker, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. "WHEREFORE, the instant motion is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. The Decision of 18 February 1997 as well as the Resolution of 26 March 1997 of this Commission are hereby SET ASIDE and the 24 April 1995 decision of the Labor Arbiter, REINSTATED and AFFIRMED." It was petitioners turn to move for a reconsideration on the ground that a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed under the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. The motion was denied in a Resolution dated August 29, 1997. [9] The NLRC ruled: "Indeed, the rule is always in favor of liberality in the construction of procedural laws so that the real matter in dispute, as in the instant case, may be submitted and decided properly and in accordance with the law and established jurisprudence. Rigid specifications (Rules of Procedure) set by the human mind may, at times, be relaxed so as to give way to the sense of fair play as recognized by equity when the peculiar circumstances of a case, like the one at bench, so warrant. After all, the Rules of Procedure were never intended to override the ends of justice. "xxx xxx xxx "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. "SO ORDERED.