c



 

 
Ô
 
 

c

×
 
  

 



×

 !


"#petitioners,
vs.
""!

"###$"
%&'(×# 
# respondents 

è #


@ is is a petition for?
?to set aside t e decision of t e @ ird Division of t e

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. RAB-I-0044-81 and
NLRC Case No. RAB-I-0045-81 up olding t e dismissal of petitioners.

@ e facts as narrated by t e Labor Arbiter are as follows:

@ ese cases of illegal dismissal were filed on December 11, 1981 by Ant ony Farnican,
Art ur Altatis and Ricardo Wangit in t e first case, No. 0044-81, and Jovencio Mina and
Peter Atuban in t e second case, No. 0045-81. @ ey ave been consolidated since t e
complainants ave t e same causes of action against t e same respondent, Itogon-
Suyoc Mines, Inc. @ e records do not s ow w at was t eir respective pay w en t e
complainants were all disc arged on December 3, 1981.

On November 20, 1981, between 11:00 p.m. and 11:45 p.m., erein complainants were
allegedly caug t in t e act of ig grading. According to t e respondent's version, five
mine patrols proceeded to 14 Vein, 23 Position, 1400 Level underground. On t eir way,
at about 11:00 p.m., t e patrols met t e respondent's mine engineer, leadman of t e
complainants, escorted by two security guards carrying two sacks of ig grade ore. Wit
eadlig ts off, t e patrols went down t e manway and w en t ey reac ed t e
appre ension site, t ey saw t e complainants breaking and pulverizing ig grade ores in
t e presence of t e posted security guard. @ ey observed t e ig graders in (a ) five (5)
minutes, and w en t e lookout miner noticed t eir presence and warned is companions:
"Adda tao!" in Ilocano, meaning "t e guards are ere!" ² t e mine patrols appre ended
t e complainants were a plastic containing t e ig grade ores, ammers and iron tubes
being used in breaking t e ores.

One of t e complainants allegedly bribed t e appre ending officers (a ) P(1,000.00 eac
to settle t e manner (a ), but t e guards refused t e offer. Prior to t e appre ension, t e
security guard (SG) on post, SG Freddie Bragado, allegedly warned t e complainants to
stop t eir illegal activity, but t e complainants t reatened im not to report t em
ot erwise somet ing would appen to im. Because of t e t reat, alt oug e was t en
 armed wit a s otgun, SG Bragado, t e guard on post and star witness of t e
respondent, became afraid. SG Bragado just let t e complainants commit ig grading
until t e mine patrols arrived to appre end t e ig graders. Complainants were
investigated, placed preventive suspension on November 23, 1981 and subsequently
dismissed on December 3, 1981.

In support of t e foregoing allegations, t e respondent submitted t e sworn statements of

Freddie Bragado, joint affidavit of t e appre ending security guards, assay report t at t e
recovered effects are ig grade, information and resolution of t e fiscal and Order of t e
Municipal Court all s owing??  
?case exists against complainants.

@ e complainants, on t e ot er and, ave anot er version. @ ey worked under t e

supervision of Engr. Melc or Estonilo and security guards. At about 11:00 p.m., t ey
were ordered to get out, and Engr. Estonilo padlocked t eir working place so t ey
proceeded to take a crow's bat at t e place w ere t ey were appre ended. @ ey denied
t e allegations of t e appre ending security guards and c arged t em to be more
interested in t e reward of P100.00 per appre ension plus 30% percent of t e value of
t e allegedly recovered ig grade. @ at w en t ey were appre ended, t e guard on post
told t e patrols w y t ey were effecting t e arrest w en complainants ad not done
anyt ing illegal. @ at t ey were disc arged illegally, wit out any just and valid cause.
Hence, t ese complaints. In support of t e foregoing allegations, t ey submitted sworn
statements including t at of SG Bragado (c

, pp. 15-17).

On April 28, 1986, t e Labor Arbiter rendered is decision finding t at t e complainants

were illegally dismissed. @ e dispositive portion of t e decision reads: 

WHEREFORE, in t e lig t of t e foregoing considerations, t e respondent is ereby

ordered to reinstate t e five (5) complainants to t eir former respective position wit out
loss of seniority rig ts wit full back wages including ECOLA and 13t mont pay for one
year and four mont s, plus full back wages to be counted after t e 10t day from receipt
of t is decision up to t e time of t eir actual reinstatement. Respondent is also ordered to
pay complainants ten (10%) percent attorney's fees of t e total amounts (a ) awarded.

Respondent is finally ordered to present proof of compliance wit t is Order wit in ten
(10) days from receipt of t is decision (c

, p. 19).

Private respondent appealed t e decision of t e Labor Arbiter to NLRC. On October 18,

1989, t e @ ird Division of NLRC affirmed t e Labor Arbiter's decision but limited t e
award of back wages to t ree years.

Between t e rendition of t e decision of t e @ ird Division and t e resolution denying

t e motion for reconsideration, a c ange in t e members ip of t e division took place.

Administrative Order No. 161 dated November 18, 1989 of t e Secretary of Labor and
Employment reorganized t e NLRC and specified t e place of assignment of t e newly
appointed commissioners. @ e new commissioners, Presiding Commissioner Lourdes
C. Javier and Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo w o were assigned to t e @ ird
Division, assumed t eir posts on November 20, 1989 w ile Commissioner Rogelio I.
Rayala assumed is office on November 15, 1989.
In t e motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent, t e @ ird Division, as
newly constituted, rendered its Decision dated November 29, 1990 setting aside t e
Resolution dated October 18, 1990 and declaring t e dismissal from employment of
complainants as valid.

Hence, t is petition.

Petitioners claim t at t eir motion for reconsideration s ould ave been resolved by t e
same members of t e @ ird Division w o rendered t e appealed decision.

We do not agree.

Under Article 213 of t e Labor Code of t e P ilippines, as amended by R.A. No. 6715,
". . . Of t e five (5) divisions [of t e NLRC], t e First and Second Divisions s all andle
cases coming from t e National Capital Region and t e @ ird, Fourt and Fift
Divisions, cases from ot er parts of Luzon, from t e Visayas and Mindanao,
respectively. @ e divisions of t e Commission s all ave exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over cases wit t eir respective territorial jurisdiction" (Emp asis supplied).

Section 2(b), Rule VII of t e New Rules of Procedure of NLRC, provides as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

b) Divisions.² Unless ot erwise provided by law, t e Commission s all exercise its

adjudicatory and all ot er powers, functions and duties t roug its five (5) Divisions. Eac
Division s all consist of one member from t e public sector w o s all act as Presiding
Commissioner and one member eac from t e workers and employers sectors,
respectively.

` ?
? 
? ?aa ?
?a??
?aa?a

?
?

a
?

?
a ?
?

a? ? a
a? ? ?
?
?
?c
??
?
`
 ?
??a ?


? a
a? ?? c
a? ?
?

?
a
?c
 ? ? ? ?

?!
?!
?? "??a ?


?
a
a? ? a#a? c
a?  ?  ?? "? ?
? ?a ?


? a
a?
?!? c
a?$ ?$ ?$??$ ?
?a
? ?
?!?
a?c
?
aa?a

%?

Since petitioners are from Baguio City, t e @ ird Division of NLRC correctly took
cognizance of t e appealed case. As may be gleaned from t e above-cited rules of
NLRC, Baguio City is included in t e Cordillera Administrative Region, w ic is
assigned to t e NLRC @ ird Division. Consequently, t e motion for reconsideration filed
by petitioners must also be resolved by said @ ird Division.

@ e law is clear t at t e jurisdiction to decide cases appealed to NLRC is vested in t e

different divisions t ereof, not in t e individual commissioners assigned to eac division.
It is t erefore of no significance as to w o of t e commissioners is functioning in t e
division at any given time. @ e only matter of concern is t at t e Commissioners voting
on t e motion for reconsideration were duly assigned to t e division. By analogy, in t e
case of ?%?


??#, 29 P il. 341 (1915), t e Supreme Court
stated t at:

. . . In ordinary parlance judges are spoken of as t e courts and t e courts are referred to,
w en t e person speaking means t e judge simply. It is common for persons, lawyers,
and judges, as well as t e law, to use t ese terms interc angeably. But, notwit standing
t at fact, t ere is an important distinction between t em w ic s ould be kept in mind.
Courts may exist wit out a present judge. @ ere may be a judge wit out a court. @ e
judge may become disqualified, but suc fact does not destroy t e court. It simply means
t at t ere is no judge to act in t e court. @ e courts of t e P ilippine Islands were created
and t e judges were appointed t ereto later. In a few instances, t e judges were
appointed before t e courts were establis ed. A person may be appointed a judge and
be assigned to a particular district or court subsequently. So it appears t at t ere is an
important distinction between t e court, as an entity, and t e person w o occupies t e
position of judge (at pp. 346-347).

Going now to t e claim t at petitioners were illegally dismissed, we find and so old t at
substantial evidence exists to warrant t e finding t at petitioners were engaged in
ig grading.

It is well-establis ed t at factual findings of labor administrative officials, if supported by

substantial evidence, are entitled not only to great respect but even to finality (Baguio
Colleges Foundation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 222 SCRA 604 [1993];
Capitol Industrial Construction Groups v. National Labor Relations Commission, 221
SCRA 469 [1993]).

It is not imperative t at all t e elements of ig grading or t eft of gold as defined by

Section 1 of P.D. No. 581 exist to justify respondent company's loss of trust and
confidence in petitioners.

@ e job of petitioners, as miners, alt oug generally described as menial, is,

nevert eless, of suc nature as to require a substantial amount of trust and confidence
on t e part of respondent company. Since t ere is reasonable ground to believe t at
petitioners committed t e crime of ig grading, respondent company is justified in
terminating t eir services.

WHEREFORE, t e petition is DISMISSED. @ e Decision of NLRC dated November 29,

1990 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.



 ?
?&%??' ?&&% ?  %?

(

a

 ?&% ?a??


%?