CLATEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v.

NLRC
G.R. No. 102993, July 14, 1995
Quiason, J.

FACTS: Arnelio M. Clarete was hired by Caltex Philippines, Inc. as

Mechanic and was assigned to the Mechanical/Metal Grades
Section of Caltex’s refinery in San Pascual, Batangas. According to
Clarete, on his way to the refinery’s main gate after completing a
day’s work, he saw a bottle of lighter fluid which mechanics use to
remove grease from their hands. He picked up the bottle and put
it on the basket on his bike with the intention of asking the
security guard at the gate to allow him to bring it home. Upon
reaching the gate, after punching out, Clarete asked Juan de Villa,
the security guard, permission to take home the bottle. Since de
Villa is not authorized to grant the permission sought, de Villa
referred Clarete to Dominador Castillo, the security supervisor.
Castillo then told Clarete to leave the bottle in his office. Clarete
complied and left for home. Caltex however, gave a different
version of the incident. On said date, de Villa noticed a black bag
which Clarete did not submit for inspection. Unconvinced with
Clarete’s statement that it only contained dirty clothes, de Villa
opened the bag and found a bottle of lighter fluid. Clarete was
charged with the crime of theft before the MTC of San Pascual,
Batangas. Clarete was acquitted of the crime charged due to
insufficiency of evidence to establish his guild beyond reasonable
doubt. How every Clarete was then informed that his services was
being terminated for serious misconduct and loss of trust and
confidence. Clarete then filed for illegal dismissal against Caltex.
Labor Arbiter Tanodra rendered a decision in favor of Clarete
directing Caltex to reinstate Clarete with full backwages. On
appeal, NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and gave credence
to the version of Caltex of the incident as it found no reason to
doubt the narration of the security guard who was simply doing
his job and was not shown to hold a personal grudge or ill motive
to testify against Clarete.

ISSUE: Whether or not Clarete was illegally dismissed.

HELD: Yes. While it is the prerogative of the employers to

regulate all aspects of employment such us hiring, work
assignments, manner of work, procedure to be followed,
discipline, dismissal, or recall of workers, such prerogative must
be exercised only in the manner provided by law. This right of the
employer must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just
cause. Although the Supreme Court concurred in the NLRC’s
conclusion that the version of Caltex of the incident is more
credible, the Supreme Court found the penalty of dismissal
imposed upon Clarete too hard and unreasonable. Such a penalty
of dismissal must be commensurate with the act, conduct, or
omission imputed to the employee and imposed in connection
with the employer’s disciplinary authority. Considering that
Clarete has no previous record in his eight years of service; that
the value of the lightfluid, placed at P8.00, is very minimal
compared to his salary of P325.00 a day; that after his dismissal,
he has undergone mental torture; that respondent did not lose
anything as the bottle of lighter fluid was retrieved on time; and
that there was no showing that Clarete’s retention in the service
would work undue prejudice to the viability of the employer’s
operations or is patently inimical to its interest, the Supreme
Court held that the penalty of dismissal is unduly harsh and
grossly disproportionate to the reason for terminating his
employment. Hence, the preventive suspension imposed upon
Clarete is a sufficient penalty for the misdemeanor committed by
him.