G.R. No. 180660 - MARIBAGO BLUEWATER BEACH RESORT, INC., VS. NITO DUAL. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, VIEWED FROM THE FOREGOING , judgment is hereby rendered declaring the absence of valid cause in the termination of complainant from the service. Complainant is thus, entitled to reinstatement but without backwages considering that respondents are in good faith. However, since reinstatement is no longer feasible, respondents MARIBAGO BLUE WATER BEACH RESORT/ARCADIO ALEGRADO are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally, complainant NITO DUAL the total amount of THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.00) , Philippine currency, representing Separation Pay, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, through the Cashier of this Arbitration Branch. Other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. [18] The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and dismissed the complaint, to wit: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 03 August 2005 is VACATED and SET ASIDE and the complainant's complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. [19] The NLRC also denied respondent's motion for reconsideration. [20] It ruled that complainant's act of depriving respondent of its lawful revenue is tantamount to fraud against the company which warrants dismissal from the service. [21] Falsification of commercial documents as a means to malverse company funds constitutes fraud against the company. [22] The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and resolution of the NLRC. Finding no sufficient valid cause to justify respondent's dismissal, the Court of Appeals ordered petitioner to pay respondent full backwages and separation pay, as follows: WHEREFORE , the instant petition is GRANTED . The Decision, dated March 31, 2006, and Resolution, dated June 28, 2006, of the NLRC, in NLRC Case No. V-000590-2005 are REVERSED . A new judgment is hereby rendered, directing private respondent [herein petitioner Maribago Bluewater Beach Resort, Inc.] to pay petitioner [herein respondent Nito Dual] full backwages from the time he was illegally dismissed, up to the finality of this decision and a separation pay of one month salary for every year of service. [23] The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. OUR RULING The petition before this Court prays for the resolution of a sole issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REVERSING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PAY RESPONDENT FULL BACKWAGES FROM THE TIME HE WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED, UP TO THE FINALITY OF [ITS] DECISION AND SEPARATION PAY OF ONE MONTH SALARY FOR EVERY YEAR OF SERVICE. [24] In essence, the issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed. Petitioner places the crux of the controversy on the proven tampering of the transaction receipt which happened in respondent's workstation. Thus, petitioner seeks a review of the findings of the Court of Appeals for being speculative [25] and prays that its decision and resolution be reversed. [26] Petitio