DOUBT IN EVIDENCE IN LABOR CASE SHALL BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF LABOR

Doubt sometimes persists in the midst of pieces of evidence and testimony presented in a labor dispute.

However, the Labor Code, under Article 4, states that doubts shall be resolved in favor of labor. The Supreme Court held that:

Guide to Valid Dismissal of Employees: Learn How to Validly Dismiss or Terminate Employees

Dominador Malabunga, Jr. vs. Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation
G.R. No. 198515, June 15, 2015

Facts:

Respondent Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation is engaged in the business of manufacturing steel products. It hired Malabunga Dominador Malabunga, Jr. as one of its machinists.

An inventory of Cathay Pacific Steel’s tools and items at the company warehouse was made, and it was found that one aluminum level was issued to Cathay Pacific Steel’s Fabrication Unit, and another to Malabunga. On July 11, 2004, Malabunga returned an aluminum level to the warehouse.

Cathay Pacific Steel served a written Notice upon Malabunga, charging the latter with theft of the aluminum level issued to its Fabrication Unit and requiring him to submit a written explanation. Cathay Pacific Steel claimed that Malabunga stole the aluminum level issued to the Fabrication Unit and returned the same to cover up the loss of the one issued to him.

In other words, Cathay Pacific Steel accused Malabunga of stealing the aluminum level issued to the Fabrication Unit and returning the same on July 11, 2004, passing it off as the one that was issued to him previously; by doing this, Malabunga would then cover up the loss of or failure to return the one that was previously issued to him.

Attached to the Notice were handwritten statements of Cathay Pacific Steel’s warehouse foreman Salvador Narvasa (Narvasa) and warehouseman Reymundo Manuel Baetiong (Baetiong).

In his statement, Narvasa claimed that on July 13, 2004, he discovered an untarnished (“malinis”) aluminum level which Malabunga apparently returned on July 11, 2004, but which was issued to the Fabrication Unit; that upon checking his records, it was confirmed that it was Malabunga who returned the said tool; that he called Malabunga and Nonito Tercero (Tercero) – one of Cathay Pacific Steel’s workers assigned to the Fabrication Unit/Machine Shop who apparently discovered that what Malabunga returned on July 11, 2004 was the missing aluminum level issued to the Fabrication Unit – to a meeting and told them that what Malabunga returned was the aluminum level issued to the Fabrication Unit; and that Malabunga remarked that if the aluminum level was lost or he stole it, the Fabrication Unit crew should be charged for the loss of the tool which was issued to them because they were negligent in its handling.

On the other hand, Baetiong claimed in his statement that he was on duty on July 11, 2004 – or when Malabunga returned the aluminum level; that he was then with Rudolfo Zapanta, another warehouseman; that Malabunga returned an aluminum level; that days after, he learned that what Malabunga returned was the aluminum level issued to the Fabrication Unit; that it was Tercero who told him that the level returned by Malabunga was the one issued to the Fabrication Unit; that Tercero came to know of this when he came to the warehouse to borrow an aluminum level; that from an inspection of the warehouse records, it was discovered that there were only two individuals who borrowed tools from the warehouse – Malabunga and one Carlo Alocino; that of the two, only Malabunga was able to return an aluminum level.

In his written explanation, Malabunga insisted that the accusation against him was false, baseless and unfair; that the aluminum level he borrowed on June 28, 2004 was the very same tool which he returned on July 11, 2004; that when he returned the aluminum level he borrowed, the warehousemen readily accepted the same and they did not complain about the condition thereof, nor did they notice anything unusual – for example, that the markings thereon were erased or defaced, or that there was any defect in the tool; that Cathay Pacific Steel’s tools should be permanently marked or security coded in order to prevent confusion and to forestall baseless accusations such as those being leveled against him; and that the Fabrication Unit placed a mark on the aluminum level which it claims to belong to it only several days after the occurrence of the unfortunate incident.

During the course of the investigation, hearings were conducted. The written statements of several employees were likewise taken. Thereafter, Cathay Pacific Steel issued its Decision suspending Malabunga for a period of 30 days and requiring him to return the value of the lost aluminum level, or ­280.00, through salary deductions.

The decision stated that Malabunga was charged with theft of the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level; that on July 11, 2004, Malabunga returned to the warehouse an aluminum level upon which was engraved the word “FABRICATION” and which had a dent on the edge thereof; that Tercero discovered the theft when he borrowed the aluminum level from the warehouse; that upon investigation, it was learned that Malabunga stole the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level in order to pass it off as the one which he borrowed previously; that Malabunga’s written explanation was insufficient to subvert the circumstantial evidence which points to him as the perpetrator of the theft; that Malabunga is guilty of serious misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code and “Patakaran Bilang 26” of the company rules and regulations relative to theft of company property or employee/visitor belongings; and that on account of Malabunga’s years of service and the small amount involved, the company decided to impose the penalty of suspension and not dismissal.

Malabunga – through the company union (CAPASCO) – filed a Motion for Review seeking a reconsideration of the above Decision, arguing that there is no convincing evidence to link Malabunga to the theft of the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level except for Narvasa’s statement that what Malabunga returned was the aluminum level issued to the Fabrication Unit. It was however, denied.

Thus, Malabunga’s suspension was implemented prompting Malabunga to file the case of illegal suspension before the NLRC.

LA Ruling:

The Labor Arbiter issued his Decision dismissing Malabunga’s complaint for illegal suspension. The Labor Arbiter held that substantial evidence – in the form of written statements of Cathay Pacific Steel’s witnesses positively identifying Malabunga as returning the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level and not the one issued to him – warranted the imposition of the penalty of suspension.

Malabunga appealed to the NLRC.

NLRC Ruling:

The NLRC found merit in the appeal.

The NLRC held that aside from the admitted fact that they are all employees of Cathay Pacific Steel, a perusal of the affidavits of Rodolfo Mangahas, Nonito Tercero and Antonio Nagales disclose that they are seriously inadequate to support a conclusion that it was the Malabunga who took the lost aluminum level. All of them merely reinforce the fact that an aluminum level had been lost and that the same was discovered to have been in the warehouse when Nonito Tercero borrowed an aluminum level and was given by the warehouseman Dennis Zapanta, by chance, the lost aluminum level. Nothing therein states that the said aluminum level was taken by Malabunga.

Further, it ratiocinated that Cathay Pacific Steel relied heavily on the statement of the warehouseman pointing to the Malabunga as the one who returned to him the lost aluminum level. But there is nothing on record, except for such statement, that the item returned by Malabunga is the same aluminum level that was lost.

Even assuming that it was the Malabunga who returned the aluminum level 24” that was discovered subsequently as the very aluminum level 24” that had been lost in the fabrication unit, said fact alone does not create a presumption that it was also the Malabunga who had stolen the same. For it is highly inconceivable if not completely absurd, for Malabunga, if he was indeed guilty of the crime of theft, to return the very object of the crime. Clearly, this theory defies logic and ordinary human experience.

What is clear from the records is the admitted fact that the warehouseman, as correctly pointed out by Malabunga, failed to immediately call the attention of the latter upon the receipt of his borrowed item if there was indeed a discrepancy between the level he borrowed, and the one he returned. It took the warehouseman a few days to declare the item returned by Malabunga as different from the one he borrowed.

Cathay Pacific Steel moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion prompting the Cathay Pacific Steels to file a petition for certiorari before the CA.

CA Ruling:

The CA held that there was reasonable ground to believe that Malabunga was responsible for the theft of the aluminum level assigned to the Cathay Pacific Steel’s Fabrication Unit. It sustained the Labor Arbiter’s findings that based on the statements of Mangahas, Tercero and Nagales – workers at the Fabrication Unit – and the written explanations of Narvasa and Baetiong, it was established that what Malabunga returned to the warehouse on July 11, 2004 was the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level and not the one issued to him; that the aluminum level he returned contained the engraving “Fabrication” and a dent which was familiar to the Fabrication Unit’s workers; and that the inventory records would show that at the time, Malabunga was the only one who returned an aluminum level to the warehouse.

Get an updated and re-numbered copy of Labor Code 2017

The CA added that Malabunga’s defense of alibi and denial could not be given weight, in the face of positive identification by the other witnesses that what he returned on July 11, 2004 was the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level, since it was engraved with “Fabrication” and had the familiar dent.

Malabunga filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied the same. Hence, the present Petition.

Issue/s:

Whether or not theft of an instrument or tool can be established by the return of the said missing tool which was not earlier reported as missing

Whether or not in case of doubt in evidence the case shall be resolved in favor of labor

SC Ruling:

The SC granted the petition.

The Cathay Pacific Steel’s warehouseman, Narvasa positively declared that what Malabunga returned, and what he and co-warehouseman Dennis Zapanta actually received from Malabunga, was an untarnished (malinis) and unique aluminum level. In other words, it did not contain any engraving nor bear any dent, damage or scratch. This directly contradicted the claims of the Fabrication Unit workers.

An examination of the statement of another warehouseman, Baetiong, revealed that he had no personal knowledge at all that what Malabunga returned was the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level; he claimed to have learned of this fact only from Tercero, who came to borrow an aluminum level on July 13, 2004. Upon being given one, Tercero apparently noticed that it was the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level, and he told the warehousemen of this fact. Based on Tercero’s unilateral claim, the warehousemen concluded that what Malabunga returned was indeed the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level.

If it is true that the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level was supposedly lost sometime in June 2004 which loss was never reported, and subsequently discovered by Tercero to be in the warehouse all along when he went there to borrow one on July 13, 2004, then it could not be the case that said aluminum level – which contained an engraving of the word “Fabrication” and had a dent – was the one Malabunga returned on July 11, 2004.

The declaration of warehouseman Narvasa was categorical; he and his colleague Dennis Zapanta received from Malabunga an untarnished aluminum level which had no dent or damage whatsoever. This can only mean that Malabunga returned the aluminum level that was originally issued to him as stated in the warehouse records, and not the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level, since it did not contain an engraving, and had no dent.

With the foregoing finding, the only logical conclusion that may be arrived at is that Malabunga did not commit theft of the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument that what Malabunga returned was indeed the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level, still there could be no valid basis to charge him with theft.

As Cathay Pacific Steel and its witnesses themselves admitted, there was no official report of loss of the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level; the workers at said unit concealed the loss, and declared it so and admitted it only when Tercero supposedly discovered that what he had borrowed on July 13, 2004 was the very same aluminum level which was purportedly missing since June 2004.

In other words, the aluminum level was declared lost at the same time it was found, in which case – using common sense and logic – there could be no loss at all. As far as Cathay Pacific Steel is concerned, the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level was never lost. More to the point, the SC did not give weight to the statements of the Fabrication Unit workers Mangahas, Tercero, and Nagales; their failure to report the loss of their unit’s aluminum level makes their statements not only highly doubtful and self-serving, but unnecessary and uncalled for – an afterthought not worth considering.

Faced with the limitations in Cathay Pacific Steel’s system, the SC held that it could not sustain the view that Malabunga is guilty of theft of company property. It could simply be that due to the ineffective system within the warehouse and its inefficient personnel, there was a mix-up of records; worse, it could be that tools and items within the warehouse were misplaced or lost due to its irresponsible personnel. If any, Cathay Pacific Steel is alone responsible; it cannot conveniently put the blame on its employees in order to make up for or cover its losses caused by its own disorganized system and inept personnel.

There are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the factual basis of the charges against Malabunga. These doubts shall be resolved in his favor in line with the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.