View full case

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MORENO DUMAPIS

FACTS:

The case involves the dismissal of respondents Moreno Dumapis, Elmo Tundagui, and Francis Liagao by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation (petitioner) for committing highgrading activities, which is a prohibited act in the mining industry. The alleged highgrading incident happened in the afternoon of September 15, 2000. Petitioner's foreign consultant discovered a group of workers engaged in sorting and washing "highgrade" ores. Security Investigators conducted an investigation and obtained confessions from the workers involved. Based on their findings, petitioner issued a resolution dismissing respondents and their co-accused from employment. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was initially dismissed by the Labor Arbiter but later declared as illegal by the NLRC. The NLRC ordered petitioner to pay respondents backwages and separation pay. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, but it was dismissed. Petitioner now seeks the review and reversal of the CA decision before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, an employee, was dismissed from service by the respondent company for breach of trust and confidence. The employees filed a complaint with the NLRC alleging that their dismissal was illegal. The NLRC ruled in favor of the employees, declaring their dismissal as illegal. The company then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA to reverse the NLRC's decision. However, the CA affirmed the NLRC's decision and denied the company's motion for reconsideration. The company then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in considering the Joint Affidavit of the Security Investigators as hearsay and inadmissible. The company contended that administrative bodies like the NLRC should not be bound by the technical rules of evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with the company that the Joint Affidavit should be considered as an investigation report and thus admissible. However, the Court clarified that the admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value, which depends on judicial evaluation.

On June 30, 1999, while the vessel M/V Philippine Princess was docked at the port of Misamis Oriental, a typhoon signal was raised. The captain ordered the crew members to secure the ship. However, Third Engineer (3/E) Rosaroso was noticed by his colleagues as being slack and not caring about the security of the vessel despite the adverse weather condition. The Chief Engineer and the Master Convenor of the vessel reported the matter to the vessel's manning agency, Multinational Maritime Inc. (MMI).

MMI conducted an investigation regarding the incident and found 3/E Rosaroso guilty of gross negligence and terminated his employment. Subsequently, 3/E Rosaroso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against MMI and the vessel's owner, Philippine Transmarine Carriers (PTC), before the NLRC.

ISSUES:

  1. The issue in this case is whether the Report of the Chief Engineer and the Joint Affidavit constitute substantial evidence to support the dismissal of the respondent.

  2. Whether the Joint Affidavit presented by the employer, which implicates the respondents in the act of highgrading, is sufficient evidence to support their dismissal.

  3. Whether the recantation of one of the sources of the Joint Affidavit provides enough doubt as to the guilt of the respondent.

  4. Whether or not there is a valid ground for dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence.

  5. Whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the dismissal of the respondents.

  6. Whether or not the respondents can be reinstated and entitled to backwages.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the Report of the Chief Engineer and the Joint Affidavit do not constitute substantial evidence to support the dismissal of the respondent. The Court found that the Report of the Chief Engineer was uncorroborated and lacks probative value because it is hearsay and not sourced from personal knowledge. Additionally, the Court found that the Joint Affidavit was not based on the personal knowledge of the Security Investigators and that there is a need to individually scrutinize the statements and testimonies of the sources to determine its probative weight.

  2. The Joint Affidavit, sourced from Chambers, Damoslog, Daguio, and Madao, is not sufficient evidence to warrant the dismissal of the respondents. Chambers and Daguio did not identify the miners involved in the act of highgrading. Damoslog's sworn statements did not implicate the respondents, and Madao recanted his statement implicating respondent Liagao. The sworn statements and joint affidavits do not corroborate the claims made in the Joint Affidavit.

  3. The recantation of Madao, one of the sources of the Joint Affidavit, casts doubt on the guilt of respondent Liagao. In labor cases, where technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied if it would be detrimental to the worker, an affidavit of desistance gains importance, especially in the absence of evidence explicitly showing the dismissed employee's act that caused the dismissal.

  4. The right of an employer to dismiss an employee based on loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.

  5. In this case, the Court held that there is not enough substantial evidence to support the dismissal of the respondents.

  6. The respondents cannot be reinstated as they are estopped from claiming their right to reinstatement due to their previous appeals being denied.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Administrative or quasi-judicial bodies are not bound by the technical rules of procedure, but they must still comply with fundamental evidentiary rules.

  • The evidence presented must have a modicum of admissibility and substantiality to have probative value.

  • Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  • Hearsay evidence does not have probative value unless it falls under an exception recognized by law.

  • In labor cases, technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied if it would be detrimental to the worker.

  • An affidavit of desistance gains added importance in the absence of explicit evidence showing the dismissed employee's act that caused the dismissal.

  • Loss of trust and confidence must be substantial and supported by clearly established facts to warrant an employee's dismissal.

  • Doubts arising from the evidence presented should be resolved in favor of the employee.

  • The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment prevents the raising of issues that have already been resolved in previous cases.