GELMART INDUSTRIES PHIL., INC.

, VS NLRC, FRANCIS
Ponente: Gancayco, J.

FACTS:
R Felix Francis started working as an auto-mechanic for P Gelmart Industries Phils., Inc. sometime in 1971. As such, his work consisted of the
repair of engines and underchassis, as well as trouble shooting and overhauling of company vehicles. He is likewise entrusted with some tools
and spare parts in furtherance of work assigned to him.
April 1987, R was caught by the security guards taking out of GELMART's premises a plastic container filled with 16 ounces of
"used' motor oil, without the necessary gate pass to cover the same as required under GELMART's rules and regulations.
By reason thereof, P was placed under preventive suspension pending investigation for violation of rules and regulations. Under the
said rules, theft and/or pilferage of company property merits an outright termination from employment. After due investigation, or May 1987, R
was found guilty of theft of company property. As a consequence, his services were severed.

R filed complaint for illegal dismissal before NLRC.

February 1988, LA: ruled that R was illegally dismissed and, accordingly, ordered the latter's reinstatement with full backwages from April 1987
up to the time of actual reinstatement.

ISSUE: WON Felix Francis was properly dismissed from work provided that alleged stole used motor oil? NO! Preventive suspension was
already enough penalty for Felix Francis. (NLRC did not commit GAD)

RULING: NO.
Consistent with policy of State to bridge the gap between the underprivileged workers and more affluent employers, NLRC rightfully tilted the
balance in favor of the workingmen and this was done without being blind to the concomitant right of the employer to the protection of his
property.
NLRC correctly pointed out that R cannot totally escape liability for what is patently a violation of company rules and regulations.
To reiterate, be it of big or small commercial value, intended to be re-used or altogether disposed of or wasted, the "used" motor oil
still remains, in legal contemplation, the property of GELMART. As such, to take the same out of GELMART's premises without the
corresponding gate pass is a violation of the company rule on theft and/or pilferage of company property.
However, as this Court ruled in Meracap vs. International Ceramics Mfg. Co., Inc., "where a penalty less punitive would suffice,
whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. On this score, it is very difficult for this
Court to discern grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in modifying the appealed decision. The suspension imposed upon R is
a sufficient penalty for the misdemeanor committed.

A careful review of the cases cited in Firestone will readily reveal that the underlying reason behind sustaining the penalty of
dismissal or outright termination is that, under the circumstances obtaining in those cases, there exists ample reason to distrust the employees
concerned. The Firestone decision cannot be deemed as a limitation on the right of the State in the exercise of its paramount police power to
regulate or temper the prerogative of management to dismiss an erring employee. Even when there exist some rules agreed upon between the
employer and the employee, it cannot preclude the State from inquiring on whether or not its rigid application would work too harshly on the
employee.
Considering factors that R herein
(1) has no previous derogatory record in his 15 yrs of service with P GELMART,
(2) the value of the property pilfered 16 ounces of used motor oil is very minimal, plus the fact
(3) that R failed to reasonably establish that non-dismissal of private respondent would work undue prejudice to the viability of their
operation or is patently inimical to the company's interest, it is more in consonance with the policy of the State, as embodied in the Constitution,
to resolve all doubts in favor of laborAt this point, this Court does not see reason to deviate from the ruling.