G.R. No. 114129 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS AND JEREMIAS G. CORTEZ.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant case should be as it is hereby dismissed for lack of merit." [3] Aggrieved with the decision of the Labor Arbiter, private respondent elevated his case on appeal to public respondent. On September 30, 1993, the NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ordered petitioner to reinstate respondent with backwages. [4] Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. Hence, this petition. The crux of the present controversy is whether or not private respondents dismissal from the service was illegal. A perusal of the records shows that there is a divergence of views between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC regarding the validity of the dismissal of respondent by petitioner. Although, it is a legal tenet that factual findings of administrative bodies are entitled to great weight and respect, we are constrained to take a second look at the facts before us because of the diversity in the opinions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Petitioner alleges that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter on the following grounds: (a) that petitioner admitted in its Position Paper (Annex "12") that private respondent "went into hiding as he was engaged in a trouble with a neighbor" and (b) that in the said decision, the Labor Arbiter relied not so much on complainants absences from August 1 to September 19, 1989 which was the subject of the investigation, but on complainants previous infractions. Article 283 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination. Among such causes are the following: "a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employers or representatives in connection with his work. b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. xxx xxx xxx." This cause includes gross inefficiency, negligence and carelessness. Such just causes is derived from the right of the employer to select and engage his employees. For indeed, regulation of manpower by the company clearly falls within the ambit of management prerogative. This court had defined a valid exercise of management prerogative as one which covers: hiring work assignment, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. Except as provided for, or limited by, special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment. [5] Moreover, this Court has upheld a companys management prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements. [6] In the case at bar, the service record of private