G.R. NO. 178976 - ABELARDO P. ABEL, VS. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY FERNANDO AGUSTIN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding respondents guilty of illegal dismissal. Respondents must reinstate complainant to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay him full backwages reckoned from the time his compensation was effectively withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement, which as of this writing amount to One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight Pesos and Thirty Four Centavos (P169,458.34). The Labor Arbiter found that respondent failed to prove by substantial evidence the alleged fraud committed by petitioner, explaining that the telephone conversations between petitioner and Didith Caballero of ANSECA would not suffice to lay the basis for respondent's loss of trust and confidence in petitioner. On the charge of gross negligence, the Labor Arbiter held that no negligence was present as respondent itself admitted that petitioner reported the underloading to Tabogader, who was then in charge of the subsidence area where the alleged anomaly was happening. On respondent's appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter by Decision dated January 31, 2005, [10] finding that petitioner was guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty as he continually reported ANSECA's backfilling operations as "okay" per his inspection notwithstanding the gross underloading; and that he did not act on Lupega's report concerning certain irregularities. To the NLRC, petitioner's failure to perform his duty of inspecting ANSECA's operations and vacillation on certain matters during the company investigation, among other things, constituted sufficient basis for respondent's loss of trust and confidence. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of July 7, 2005, [11] he appealed to the Court of Appeals via certiorari. [12] As reflected early on, the appellate court denied due course to, and dismissed, petitioner's appeal by Decision dated January 22, 2007, [13] upon a finding that what petitioner was questioning were the findings of fact and conclusions of the NLRC which would, at most, constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctable by certiorari. It likewise found that petitioner failed to substantiate the grave abuse of discretion imputed to the NLRC, he not having demonstrated how the NLRC decided in a manner contrary to the constitution, law or jurisprudence, or how it acted whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will, or personal bias. His Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of July 6, 2007, [14] petitioner comes before this Court via the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. Petitioner argues that respondent's lone witness Lupega offered no proof of the alleged incidents of underloading of the trucks of ANSECA during backfilling operations; that he nevertheless reported the supposed underloading to Tabogader who subsequently t