Dominador Malabunga Jr. v. Cathay Pacific Steel Corp., G.R. No. 198515, June 15, 2015

G.R. No. 198515 : June 15, 2015 DOMINADOR MALABUNGA, JR., Petitioner, v. CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent. DEL CASTILLO, J.: FACTS: Respondent Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation is a duly registered domestic corporation engaged in manufacture of steel products. It hired petitioner Dominador Malabunga Jr. as one of its machinists. On July 9, 2004, an inventory was conducted at the company warehouse and it was found that one aluminum level was issued to respondent’s Fabrication Unit and another was issued to petitioner. On July 11, 2004, petitioner returned an aluminum level to the warehouse. Thereafter, on July 24, 2004, petitioner was charged with theft of an aluminum level. Respondent based its allegations on the statements of its warehousemen alleging that petitioner returned an untarnished aluminum level that was allegedly issued to the Fabrication Unit, that the discovery of the theft was made on July 22, 2004 when another machinist borrowed the aluminum level and found that it was the lost level issued to the Fabrication Unit, that it was allegedly the lost aluminum level of the Fabrication Unit since it has a dent on one side, and that petitioner must have stolen the same from the Fabrication Unit in order to cover up for the theft of the aluminum level issued to petitioner. Petitioner, for his part, insists that the accusation against him was false, baseless, and unfair, that the aluminum level he borrowed was the same one he returned on July 11, 2004, that when he returned the same, the warehousemen did not find anything unusual on the level and that he cannot be faulted for the ineptness or inefficiency of respondent in keeping track of its equipment. On December 2, 2004, respondent suspended petitioner for a period of 30 days and required him to return the value of the lost aluminum level or P280.00 through salary deductions. Thus, petitioner was suspended from January 10, 2005 to February 13, 2005. Thereafter, he returned to work. On March 2, 2005, petitioner filed a Complaint for Illegal Suspension with the NLRC arguing that he should not be blamed for the loss of the aluminum level and that blame should be pointed at respondent’s warehousemen for their failure to maintain a system that would clearly

indicate the identity of borrowed tools and items. Petitioner also prays that his suspension be declared illegal and that respondent be made to pay his supposed salary from January 10 to February 13, 2005. In its Decision, the Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint giving credence to the statements made by respondent’s warehousemen. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and ruled that the statements of the warehousemen do not prove that it was petitioner who took the aluminum level. Their statements only prove that an aluminum level was lost and that the theft was discovered only when another machinist sought to borrow an aluminum level. Moreover, it is absurd for a thief to return the thing stolen as it would be entirely illogical and contrary to ordinary human experience. Respondent sought a reversal of the NLRC’s decision in the CA. For its part, the CA affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that based on the statements of the warehousemen, petitioner did steal the aluminum level. Furthermore, the CA held that petitioner’s defense of alibi and denial could not be given credence in the face of positive identification of the other witnesses. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred when it did not affirm the decision of the NLRC? HELD: LABOR LAW: appreciation of factual matters in labor cases In labor cases, findings of fact by the labor tribunals are normally given credence by the Court as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. However, in exceptional cases, the Court may resolve factual issues such as when 1) there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or the court below, 2) too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties, and 3) the LA and the NLRC came up with conflicting positions. Here, the LA, NLRC, and the CA all failed to appreciate the evidence which would have exonerated the petitioner for theft. Respondent claims that what petitioner returned to the warehouse was the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level bearing the words Fabrication with a dent on one side. However, records reveal that when the aluminum level was returned by petitioner, it was untarnished. In other words, it did not contain any engraving nor bear any dent, damage or scratch. This statement directly contradicted the later statements of the warehousemen. Thus, the logical conclusion is that petitioner did not commit the theft.

From the foregoing, the Court cannot sustain the view that petitioner committed theft of company property. It could simply be because of inefficient record keeping on the part of respondent. Thus, respondent should be the one to bear the loss. Petition GRANTED.