FACTS: Private respondents Pescante and another PAL employee, Vicente were employed by PAL as load controller and check-in clerk, respectively. On January 19, 1993, a passenger by the name of Cominero checked in for the flight. It appears that Vicente reflected a lighter weight of baggage on Cominero’s ticket to make it appear that the same was within the allowable level. When the anomaly was later discovered, Vicente went to the cashier to pay the excess baggage fee. Cominero further paid the sum representing the excess baggage fee. Vicente implicated private respondent in the anomaly. Private respondent and Vicente were charge with “fraud against the company” and were found guilty and meted with the penalty of dismissal. The NLRC found that the alleged defrauding of petitioner’s excess baggage revenue was not the handiwork of private respondent and that petitioner failed to show it suffered loss in revenue as a consequence of private respondent’s questioned act.
ISSUE: W/N private respondent was validly dismissed.
HELD: Yes. The core of petitioner’s evidence against private respondent included the report of Vicente. It was erroneous for the NLRC to have discredited Vicente’s testimony because he appeared guilty as well. There is substantial evidence showing that private respondent had direct involvement in the illegal pooling of baggage. Private respondent’s act is inexcusable as it constitutes a serious offense under petitioner’s Code of Discipline. The fact that petitioner failed to show it suffered losses in revenue as immaterial as private respondent’s mere attempt to deprive petitioner of its lawful remedy is already tantamount to fraud. Therefore, private respondent was validly dismissed and such was for a just cause, he is not entitled to backwages nor separation pay.
0 comments:
Post a Comment