Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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 petitioners complaint giving
credence to the statements made by respondents 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 NLRCs 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 petitioners 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 Units
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.