Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 79182 September 11, 1991

PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, 

Bacorro & Associates for petitioner.

Alberto L. Dalmacion for private respondent.

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the Resolution   dated July 3, 1987 of respondent National
*

Labor Relations Commission (NLRC for brevity) which affirmed the decision dated April 30, 1986 of
Labor Arbiter Vito J. Minoria of the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII at Cebu City in Case
No. RAB-VII-0556-85 entitled "Danilo Mercado, Complainant, vs. Philippine National Oil Company-
Energy Development Corporation, Respondent", ordering the reinstatement of complainant Danilo
Mercado and the award of various monetary claims.

The factual background of this case is as follows:

Private respondent Danilo Mercado was first employed by herein petitioner Philippine National Oil
Company-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC for brevity) on August 13, 1979. He held
various positions ranging from clerk, general clerk to shipping clerk during his employment at its
Cebu office until his transfer to its establishment at Palimpinon, Dumaguete, Oriental Negros on
September 5, 1984. On June 30, 1985, private respondent Mercado was dismissed. His last salary
was P1,585.00 a month basic pay plus P800.00 living allowance (Labor Arbiter's Decision, Annex
"E" of Petition, Rollo, p. 52).

The grounds for the dismissal of Mercado are allegedly serious acts of dishonesty committed as
follows:

1. On ApriI 12, 1985, Danilo Mercado was ordered to purchase 1,400 pieces of nipa shingles
from Mrs. Leonardo Nodado of Banilad, Dumaguete City, for the total purchase price of
Pl,680.00. Against company policy, regulations and specific orders, Danilo Mercado
withdrew the nipa shingles from the supplier but paid the amount of P1,000.00 only. Danilo
Mercado appropriated the balance of P680.00 for his personal use;

2. In the same transaction stated above, the supplier agreed to give the company a discount
of P70.00 which Danilo Mercado did not report to the company;
 3. On March 28, 1985, Danilo Mercado was instructed to contract the services of Fred R.
Melon of Dumaguete City, for the fabrication of rubber stamps, for the total amount of
P28.66. Danilo Mercado paid the amount of P20.00 to Fred R. Melon and appropriated for
his personal use the balance of P8.66.

In addition, private respondent, Danilo Mercado violated company rules and regulations in
the following instances:

1. On June 5, 1985, Danilo Mercado was absent from work without leave, without proper
turn-over of his work, causing disruption and delay of company work activities;

2. On June 15, 1985, Danilo Mercado went on vacation leave without prior leave, against
company policy, rules and regulations. (Petitioner's Memorandum, Rollo, p. 195).

On September 23, 1985, private respondent Mercado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
retirement benefits, separation pay, unpaid wages, etc. against petitioner PNOC-EDC before the
NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII docketed as Case No. RAB-VII-0556-85.

After private respondent Mercado filed his position paper on December 16, 1985 (Annex "B" of the
Petition, Rollo, pp. 28-40), petitioner PNOC-EDC filed its Position Paper/Motion to Dismiss on
January 15, 1986, praying for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the Labor Arbiter and/or
the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the case (Annex "C" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 41-45), which was
assailed by private respondent Mercado in his Opposition to the Position Paper/Motion to Dismiss
dated March 12, 1986 (Annex "D" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 46-50).

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondent Mercado. The dispositive onion of said
decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents are hereby ordered:

1) To reinstate complainant to his former position with full back wages from the date of his
dismissal up to the time of his actual reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges;

2) To pay complainant the amount of P10,000.00 representing his personal share of his
savings account with the respondents;

3) To pay complainants the amount of P30,000.00 moral damages; P20,000.00 exemplary

4) To pay complainant the amount of P792.50 as his proportionate 13th month pay for 1985.

Respondents are hereby further ordered to deposit the aforementioned amounts with this
Office within ten days from receipt of a copy of this decision for further disposition.

SO ORDERED. 
(Labor Arbiter's Decision, Rollo, p. 56)

The appeal to the NLRC was dismissed for lack of merit on July 3, 1987 and the assailed decision
was affirmed.
Hence, this petition.

The issues raised by petitioner in this instant petition are:

1. Whether or not matters of employment affecting the PNOC-EDC, a government-owned

2. Assuming the affirmative, whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are justified in
ordering the reinstatement of private respondent, payment of his savings, and proportionate
13th month pay and payment of damages as well as attorney's fee.

Petitioner PNOC-EDC alleges that it is a corporation wholly owned and controlled by the
government; that the Energy Development Corporation is a subsidiary of the Philippine National Oil
Company which is a government entity created under Presidential Decree No. 334, as amended;
that being a government-owned and controlled corporation, it is governed by the Civil Service Law
as provided for in Section 1, Article XII-B of the 1973 Constitution, Section 56 of Presidential Decree
No. 807 (Civil Service Decree) and Article 277 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended (Labor
Code).

The 1973 Constitution provides:

The Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision and instrumentality of the
government including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Petitioner PNOC-EDC argued that since Labor Arbiter Minoria rendered the decision at the time
when the 1973 Constitution was in force, said decision is null and void because under the 1973
Constitution, government-owned and controlled corporations were governed by the Civil Service
Law. Even assuming that PNOC-EDC has no original or special charter and Section 2(i), Article IX-B
of the 1987 Constitution provides that:

The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivision, instrumentalities and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.

such circumstances cannot give validity to the decision of the Labor Arbiter (Ibid., pp. 192-193).

This issue has already been laid to rest in the case of PNOC-EDC vs. Leogardo, 175 SCRA 26 (July
5, 1989), involving the same petitioner and the same issue, where this Court ruled that the doctrine
that employees of government-owned and/or con controlled corporations, whether created by
special law or formed as subsidiaries under the General Corporation law are governed by the Civil
Service Law and not by the Labor Code, has been supplanted by the present Constitution. "Thus,
under the present state of the law, the test in determining whether a government-owned or controlled
corporation is subject to the Civil Service Law are the manner of its creation, such that government
corporations created by special charter are subject to its provisions while those incorporated under
the General Corporation Law are not within its coverage."

Specifically, the PNOC-EDC having been incorporated under the General Corporation Law was held
to be a government owned or controlled corporation whose employees are subject to the provisions
of the Labor Code (Ibid.).

The fact that the case arose at the time when the 1973 Constitution was still in effect, does not
deprive the NLRC of jurisdiction on the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs because
it is the Constitution in place at the time of the decision (NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. No. 69870, 168
SCRA 122 [1988]).

In the case at bar, the decision of the NLRC was promulgated on July 3, 1987. Accordingly, this
case falls squarely under the rulings of the aforementioned cases.

As regards the second issue, the record shows that PNOC-EDC's accusations of dishonesty and
violations of company rules are not supported by evidence. Nonetheless, while acknowledging the
rule that administrative bodies are not governed by the strict rules of evidence, petitioner PNOC-
EDC alleges that the labor arbiter's propensity to decide the case through the position papers
submitted by the parties is violative of due process thereby rendering the decision null and void
(Ibid., p. 196).

On the other hand, private respondent contends that as can be seen from petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration and/or Appeal dated July 28, 1986 (Annex "F" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 57- 64), the
latter never questioned the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter but simply limited its objection to the
lack of legal basis in view of its stand that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the case (Private
Respondent's Memorandum, Rollo, p. 104).

Petitioner PNOC-EDC filed its Position Paper/Motion to Dismiss dated January 15, 1986 (Annex "C"
of the Petition Rollo, pp. 41-45) before the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII of Cebu City and its
Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal dated July 28, 1986 (Annex "F" of the Petition, Rollo, pp.
57-64) before the NLRC of Cebu City. Indisputably, the requirements of due process are satisfied
when the parties are given an opportunity to submit position papers. What the fundamental law
abhors is not the absence of previous notice but rather the absolute lack of opportunity to ventilate a
party's side. There is no denial of due process where the party submitted its position paper and flied
its motion for reconsideration (Odin Security Agency vs. De la Serna, 182 SCRA 472 [February 21,
1990]). Petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal has the effect of curing
whatever irregularity might have been committed in the proceedings below (T.H. Valderama and
Sons, Inc. vs. Drilon, 181 SCRA 308 [January 22, 1990]).

Furthermore, it has been consistently held that findings of administrative agencies which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are accorded not only
respect but even finality (Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs. NLRC, 187 SCRA
784 [July 27, 1990]; Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA 179
[August 30, 1990]). Judicial review by this Court does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of
the evidence but is limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion (Filipinas
Manufacturers Bank vs. NLRC, 182 SCRA 848 [February 28, 1990]). A careful study of the records
shows no substantive reason to depart from these established principles.

While it is true that loss of trust or breach of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an
employee, such loss or breach of trust must have some basis (Gubac v. NLRC, 187 SCRA 412 [July
13, 1990]). As found by the Labor Arbiter, the accusations of petitioner PNOC-EDC against private
respondent Mercado have no basis. Mrs. Leonardo Nodado, from whom the nipa shingles were
purchased, sufficiently explained in her affidavit (Rollo, p. 36) that the total purchase price of
P1,680.00 was paid by respondent Mercado as agreed upon. The alleged discount given by Mrs.
Nodado is not supported by evidence as well as the alleged appropriation of P8.66 from the cost of
fabrication of rubber stamps. The Labor Arbiter, likewise, found no evidence to support the alleged
violation of company rules. On the contrary, he found respondent Mercado's explanation in his
affidavit (Rollo, pp. 38-40) as to the alleged violations to be satisfactory. Moreover, these findings
were never contradicted by petitioner petitioner PNOC-EDC.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DENIED and the resolution of respondent NLRC dated
July 3, 1987 is AFFIRMED with the modification that the moral damages are reduced to Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, and the exemplary damages reduced to Five Thousand (P5,000.00)
Pesos.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Penned by Commissioner Mirasol Viniega-Corleto.