Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 188 views

    Mercury V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Ian Auro
    Cesar Ladisla was caught pilfering company property from his employer, Mercury Drug Corporation. He was suspended and dismissed. Ladisla appealed, claiming he was not given a chance to explain. Meanwhile, he was convicted by an RTC of qualified theft related to the incident. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal. The NLRC reversed, finding no evidence against Ladisla. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of its discretion by disregarding the RTC conviction, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. An employer has the right to dismiss a dishonest employee to protect its interests, and a criminal conviction fortifies loss of trust, even if acquitted on a technicality. While protecting labor rights

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mercury V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Ian Auro
    188 views2 pages
    Cesar Ladisla was caught pilfering company property from his employer, Mercury Drug Corporation. He was suspended and dismissed. Ladisla appealed, claiming he was not given a chance to explain. Meanwhile, he was convicted by an RTC of qualified theft related to the incident. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal. The NLRC reversed, finding no evidence against Ladisla. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of its discretion by disregarding the RTC conviction, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. An employer has the right to dismiss a dishonest employee to protect its interests, and a criminal conviction fortifies loss of trust, even if acquitted on a technicality. While protecting labor rights

    Original Description:

    Labor Relations Case Digest - Mercury Drug Corporation vs NLRC

    Original Title

    Mercury v NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cesar Ladisla was caught pilfering company property from his employer, Mercury Drug Corporation. He was suspended and dismissed. Ladisla appealed, claiming he was not given a chance to explain. Meanwhile, he was convicted by an RTC of qualified theft related to the incident. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal. The NLRC reversed, finding no evidence against Ladisla. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of its discretion by disregarding the RTC conviction, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. An employer has the right to dismiss a dishonest employee to protect its interests, and a criminal conviction fortifies loss of trust, even if acquitted on a technicality. While protecting labor rights

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    188 views2 pages

    Mercury V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Ian Auro
    Cesar Ladisla was caught pilfering company property from his employer, Mercury Drug Corporation. He was suspended and dismissed. Ladisla appealed, claiming he was not given a chance to explain. Meanwhile, he was convicted by an RTC of qualified theft related to the incident. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal. The NLRC reversed, finding no evidence against Ladisla. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of its discretion by disregarding the RTC conviction, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. An employer has the right to dismiss a dishonest employee to protect its interests, and a criminal conviction fortifies loss of trust, even if acquitted on a technicality. While protecting labor rights

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioner

    vs.
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NLRC SHERIFF and CESAR E.
    LADISLA, Respondents.
    G.R. No. 75662 September 15, 1989
    FACTS:
    Cesar Ladisla (Ladisla) was employed by petitioner, Mercury Drug Corporation
    (Mercury) as Stock Analyst. On Aug. 15, 1977, he was apprehended by representatives
    of Mercury while in the act of pilfering company property. He admitted the guilt to the
    investigating representatives. Mercury drug filed an application for the termination of
    Ladislas employment. Ladisla opposed the aforesaid application for clearance to
    terminate his services alleging among others, that his suspension and proposed
    dismissal were unfounded and baseless being premised on the machinations and
    incriminatory acts of Ms. Leonora Suarez and Edgardo Imperial, Manager and Retail
    Supervisor, respectively, of Mercury's C.M. Recto Branch and that he was not given the
    opportunity to be heard nor allowed to explain his side before he was summarily
    suspended. Meanwhile a case of qualified theft was filed against Ladisla. The Labor
    Arbiter sustained the dismissal of Ladisla.Ladisla appealed with the NLRC. Pending
    resolution, the RTC, convicted Ladisla of the crime charged but was eventually
    released after availing the benefits of the Probation Law. NLRC reversed the decision of
    the Labor Arbiter because it found no substantial evidence establishing the charge
    against Ladisla. Hence this petition.
    ISSUE:
    May an employee who was convicted by the RTC of a work related crime associated
    with dishonesty such as qualified theft be ordered reinstated by the NLRC for lack of
    substantial evidence to sustain the charge against the employee?
    RULING:
    No, the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
    in finding no substantial evidence to sustain the charge against Ladisla. This
    conclusion is in complete and utter disregard of the Regional Trial Court's conviction
    of Ladisla for the crime of simple theft which decision was rendered prior to its own
    assailed decision. It must be remembered that proceedings in criminal cases such as
    that held in the subject criminal case require proof beyond reasonable doubt to
    establish the guilt of the accused and findings of fact of the trial court on this matter
    are generally accorded great weight by appellate courts most especially where no
    appeal had been filed thereafter, thus rendering the said findings final. The eventual
    conviction of the employee who is prosecuted for his misconduct is not indispensable
    to warrant his dismissal by his employer. More specifically, an employee who has been
    exonerated from a criminal charge of theft of gasoline on the basis of technicality may
    still be dismissed from employment if the employer has ample reason to mistrust him.
    If acquittal from the criminal charge does not negate the existence of a ground for loss
    of trust and confidence, with more reason should conviction for such criminal charge
    fortify said mistrust. Dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest not only
    of management but also of labor. As a measure of self-protection against acts inimical
    to its interest, a company has the right to dismiss its erring employees. An employer
    cannot be compelled to continue in employment an employee guilty of acts inimical to
    its interest, justifying loss of confidence in him. The law does not impose unjust
    situations on either labor or management. While the constitution is committed to the
    policy of social justice and the protection of laborers, it should not be supposed that

    labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management has also its
    own rights which are the enforcement of interest of simple fair play.

    You might also like