LABSTAN-2SR

G.R. No. 163210 August 13, 2008 several unidentified miners at 8K Stope, 850 level That we are executing this joint affidavit to establish
committing Highgrading activities therein; the foregoing facts and to support any complaint
that may be filed against respondents;
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING
COMPANY, petitioner, Consequently, all miners assigned to work therein
vs. including their supervisor and SG Ceasarion IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our
MORENO DUMAPIS, ELMO TUNDAGUI and Damoslog, an element of the Mine Security Patrol hands and affix our signature this 28th day of
FRANCIS LIAGAO, respondents. posted therein as stationary guard were called to September 2000, at Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet.8
this office for interrogation regarding this effect;
DECISION (Emphasis supplied)
In the course of the investigation, we eventually
learned that the highgrading event really transpired
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: On October 24, 2000, petitioner issued a resolution finding
somewhere at the roadway of 8K Stope, 850 level at
respondents and their co-accused guilty of the offense of
about 2:00 o’clock PM of September 15, 2000. That
highgrading and dismissing them from their employment.9
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under the involved participants were all miners assigned
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the November 7, 2003 to work at 7K Stope, 8K Stope, 240 E, Cross Cut
Decision1 and April 15, 2004 Resolution2 of the Court of South level drive, all located at 850 mine level. On November 14, 2000, respondents together with the nine
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 75860. Likewise, the detailed stationary guard assigned other miners, filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with the
thereat and some mine supervisors were also Labor Arbiter (LA), docketed as NLRC Case No. 11-0607-00
directly involved in this activity; against petitioner.10 On August 21, 2001, the LA dismissed the
The antecedents of the case are as follows:
complaint for lack of merit.
Security Guard Ceasarion Damoslog honestly
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation (petitioner), a confessed his direct participation then claimed that On September 22, 2001, the miners appealed the decision of
domestic juridical entity engaged in mining, employed he was allegedly convinced by Mr. Joel Gumatin, the LA to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Moreno Dumapis and Elmo Tundagui as lead miners; and one of the miners assigned at Panel No.1-est-North, On August 30, 2002, the NLRC rendered a Decision, declaring
Francis Liagao, as load, haul and dump (LHD) machine 8K Stope, 850 level to cooperate with them to the dismissal of herein respondents as illegal, but affirming
operator (respondents).3 All three were assigned at the 850 commit Highgrading. He revealed his companions the dismissal of the nine other complainant miners. The
level, underground, Victoria Area in Lepanto, Mankayan, to be all the miners assigned at 8K stope, namely, dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision insofar as
Benguet. This is a known "highgrade" area where most of the Joel Gumatin, Brent Suyam, Maximo Madao, Elmo respondents are concerned, reads:
ores mined are considered of high grade content. 4 Tundagui and Daniel Fegsar. He also included
those who were assigned to work at 240 E, XCS,
namely: Thomas Garcia (immediate supervisor), WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
In the afternoon of September 15, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., Dwayne
John Kitoyan, Moreno Dumapis, and Marolito DECISION dated August 21, 2001 is hereby
Chambers (Chambers), one of its foreign consultants who was
Cativo. He enumerated also messrs. Benedict MODIFIED declaring the dismissal of
then acting as Assistant Resident Manager of the Mine, went
Arocod, Samson Damian, and Dionisio Bandoc, 7K complainants [herein respondents] Moreno
underground at the 850 level to conduct a routinary
Stope, 850 level assigned miners and shiftboss, Dumapis, Elmo Tundagui and Francis Liagao illegal
inspection of the workers and the working conditions therein.
respectively; and ordering respondent to pay them backwages in
When he went to the various stopes of the said level, he was
the total amount of four hundred eighty thousand
surprised to see that nobody was there. However, when he
one hundred eighty two pesos and 63/100 (P480,
went to the 8k stope, he noticed a group of workers sitting, Mr. Pablo Daguio, the shiftboss of 240 E, XCS, 850 182.63) and separation pay in the total amount of
sorting, and washing ores believed to be "highgrade." level also positively confirmed the Highgrading four hundred seventeen thousand two hundred
Realizing that "highgrading"5 was being committed, activity. He added that actually he came upon the thirty pesos and 32/100 (P417,230.32) as computed
Chambers shouted. Upon hearing his angry voice, the workers group and even dispersed them when he went in the body of the decision.
scampered in different directions of the stope.6 Chambers therein prior to the arrival of Mr. Chambers;
then reported the incident to the security investigation office. 7
xxxx
Furthermore, we also learned from the confession
After investigating, Security Investigators Paul Pespes, Jr. and of Mr. Maximo Madao that its was messrs. Joel
Felimon Ringor (Security Investigators) executed a Joint Gumatin and Brent Suyam who took their issued SO ORDERED.11
Affidavit, which reads as follows: rock drilling machine then drilled holes and blasted
the same at the 8K Stope roadway with the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied
xxxx assistance of Thomas Garcia, John Kitoyan, for lack of merit by the NLRC in its Resolution dated on
Benedict Arocod, Samsom Damian, Daniel Fegsar November 22, 2002.12
and Francisco Liagao. That SG Ceasarion Damoslog
At about 3:40 PM of September 15, 2000, while we was present on the area standing and watching the
were at the Lepanto Security Investigation office, group during the incident; Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
we received a report that the LMD Asst. Resident the Rules of Court with the CA assailing the aforementioned
Manager, Mr. Dwayne Chambers saw and surprised decision and resolution of the NLRC. The CA affirmed the
 LABSTAN-2SR
decision of the NLRC13 and denied petitioner’s Motion for Article 221. Technical rules not binding and prior depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided
Reconsideration. resort to amicable settlement. In any proceeding by the rules of evidence.23 The distinction is clearly laid out
before the Commission or any Labor in Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in Commission.24 In finding that the Report of the Chief
Hence, herein petition on the following grounds:
courts of law or equity shall not be Engineer did not constitute substantial evidence to warrant
controlling and it is the spirit and intention of the the dismissal of Rosaroso, this Court ruled:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS Code that the Commission and its members and the
COMMITTED GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable
According to petitioner, the foregoing Report
ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE NATIONAL means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily
established that respondent was dismissed for just
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION’S and objectively and without regard to the
cause. The CA, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter,
DECISION DATED AUGUST 30, 2002 technicalities of law or procedure, all in the
however, refused to give credence to the Report.
WHICH DECLARED AS ILLEGAL THE interest of due process. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
They are one in ruling that the Report cannot be
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE OF HEREIN
given any probative value as it is uncorroborated by
RESPONDENTS.14
We agree with the petitioner. other evidence and that it is merely hearsay, having
come from a source, the Chief Engineer, who did
A. The Court of Appeal’s strict application of not have any personal knowledge of the events
Administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the
the hearsay rule under Section 36, Rule 130 reported therein.
technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining
of the Rules of Court to the present case is
in courts of law. Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and
uncalled for.
prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent xxxx
application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and
B. In cases of dismissal for breach of trust effect.17
The CA upheld these findings, succinctly stating as
and confidence, proof beyond doubt is not
follows:
required, it being sufficient that the
In a number of cases,18 this Court has construed Article 221 of
employer has reasonable ground to believe
the Labor Code as permitting the NLRC or the LA to decide a
that the employees are responsible for the Verily, the report of Chief Engineer Retardo is
case on the basis of position papers and other documents
misconduct which renders them unworthy utterly bereft of probative value. It is not verified by
submitted without necessarily resorting to technical rules of
of the trust and confidence demanded by an oath and, therefore, lacks any guarantee of
evidence as observed in the regular courts of justice. Rules of
their position.15 trusthworthiness. It is furthermore, and this is
evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before
crucial, not sourced from the personal knowledge of
administrative bodies like the NLRC.19
Chief Engineer Retardo. It is rather based on the
The petition is devoid of merit.
perception of "ATTENDING SUPT. ENGINEERS
In Bantolino v. Coca-Coca Bottlers Phils., Inc.20 the Court CONSTANTLY OBSERVING ALL PERSONNELS
In finding the dismissal of respondents illegal, the CA upheld ruled that although the affiants had not been presented to ABILITY AND ATTITUDE WITH REGARDS TO
the NLRC in considering the Joint Affidavit of the Security affirm the contents of their affidavits and be cross-examined, OUR TECHNICAL CAPABILITY AND
Investigators (Joint Affidavit) as hearsay and therefore their affidavits may be given evidentiary value; the argument BEHAVIOURS WITH EMPHASY [sic] ON
inadmissible, to wit: that such affidavits were hearsay was not persuasive. DISCIPLINE" who " NOTICED 3/E ROSAROSO AS
Likewise, in Rase v. National Labor Relations BEING SLACK AND NOT CARING OF HIS JOB
Commission,21 this Court ruled that it was not necessary for AND DUTIES x x x." Accordingly, the report is plain
We subscribed to the conclusion of the NLRC that the affiants to appear and testify and be cross-examined by hearsay. It is not backed up by the affidavit of any
the Joint Affidavit of Security Investigators Paul D. counsel for the adverse party. To require otherwise would be of the "Supt." Engineers who purportedly had first-
Pespes, Jr. and Felimon Ringor is hearsay and thus, to negate the rationale and purpose of the summary nature of hand knowledge of private respondents supposed
inadmissible. Their narration of factual events was the proceedings mandated by the Rules and to make "lack of discipline," "irresponsibility" and "lack of
not based on their personal knowledge but on mandatory the application of the technical rules of evidence. diligence" which caused him to lose his job. x x x
disclosures made by Chambers and Daguio. Section
36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court defined the
nature of hearsay: Thus, the CA and the NLRC erred in ruling that the Joint The Courts finds no reason to reverse the foregoing
Affidavit is inadmissible for being hearsay. The Joint Affidavit findings.25 (Emphasis supplied)
of the Security Investigators is admissible for what it is, an
Witness can testify only to those facts which he investigation report.
knows of his personal knowledge, that is, which are While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
derived from his own perception, except as like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of
otherwise provided in these rules.16 However, the admissibility of evidence should not be confused procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule
with its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of should not be construed as a license to disregard certain
whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must
Arguing for the admissibility of the Joint Affidavit, petitioner while probative value refers to the question of whether the at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to have
cites Article 221 of the Labor Code, as amended, which admitted evidence proves an issue.22 Thus, a particular item of probative value.26 Not only must there be some evidence to
provides: evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be
 LABSTAN-2SR
substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere 09. Ques - Did Gumatin specifically informed [sic] observed messrs. Maximo Madao, Benedict
scintilla.27 It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable you his problem? Arocod, Brent Suyam, Daniel Fegsar,
mind might accept as adequate to support a Thomas Garcia, Mariolito Cativo, John
conclusion.28 Thus, even though technical rules of evidence Kitoyna and Samson Damian who acted as the
Ans - I did not asked him honestly but he only
are not strictly complied with before the LA and the NLRC, look out at the junction of 240 E, XCS and 8K Stope.
insisted that he needed an amount of money badly
their decision must be based on evidence that must, at the very The enumerated miners except Damian were in
as I earlier said.
least, be substantial.29 squatting position in scattered adjacent places busy
sorting ores. Moments later Shift boss Dionisio
10. Ques - So just after telling his purpose did he Bandoc arrived then went to the place of Gumatin
Pursuant to the aforementioned doctrines, we now look into
started [sic] the highgrading activity? then told us that he will get a portion of the already
the probative weight of the Joint Affidavit.
proceeded ores for the operator to handcarry so that
he will not need to come to 8K Stope, 850 level then
Ans - No, the highgrading scheme started at past after taking some of the loot he proceeded out
An examination of the Joint Affidavit reveals that the facts
1300 Hrs. simultaneously uttering that he will check the look
alleged therein by the Security Investigators are not of their
own personal knowledge. They simply referred to the facts out at the outer area of the mainline posted away
allegedly relayed to them by Chambers, Damoslog, Daguio, 11. Ques - How did it started [sic]? from the 7K Stope.34 (Emphasis supplied)
and Madao. Thus, there is a need to individually scrutinize the
statements and testimonies of the four sources of the Joint
Ans - They started after they all finished their Evidently, Damoslog does not name respondents Dumapis
Affidavit in order to determine the latter’s probative weight.
respective drilling assignment. That while I was and Tundagui as among the miners involved in the act of
near the panel 2-West located at the inner portion highgrading; neither does he mention respondent Liagao.
The Joint Affidavit states that, "Mr. Dwayne Chambers saw of 8K Stope, I observed the LHD unit coming from
and surprised several unidentified miners x x x."30 Chambers the roadway near the 8K Eating station which was The Joint Affidavit also states that Daguio positively
simply narrated to the Security Investigators what he saw but previously parked thereat proceeded to the roadway confirmed the act of highgrading. However, in his sworn
did not indicate herein respondents. of panel 1-West then started cleaning and scraping statement,35Daguio claims that he did not recognize nor did
said roadway. That after cleaning he parked it at the he identify any of the miners, to wit:
inner portion of the roadway. Then afterwhich one
Also stated in the Joint Affidavit is the alleged confession of
among the miner who was not assigned therein and
Damoslog wherein he named respondents Tundagui and
I failed to identify his name shove two shovels on 11. Ques - In your own honest observation, what
Dumapis as his companions in the act of highgrading . 31
the roadway recently cleaned by the LHD then could be the estimate [sic] number of this group of
handed it to us with another man whom I don’t miners doing highgrading activities?
Records show that Damoslog submitted two sworn know his name but could recognize and identify
statements. In his first statement,32 Damoslog claimed that he him if I will meet him again then we washed the Ans - I don’t know but obviously they were several
was unaware of the act of highrading, and denied any same in the inner area of panel 2-West which is
as manifested by their number of cap lamplights. I
involvement therein. However, in his second adjacent. That after washing and sorting the same,
also speculated that some of them were hidden at
statement,33 Damoslog claimed to have personally witnessed we placed it atop of an spread cartoon [sic] sheet.
the curved inner access of the roadway enroute to
the act of highgrading and named the miners involved to wit: That while we were busy washing and sorting, Mr.
the inner area.
Gumatin also was fixing and spreading the airhose
for rockdrilling machine. That few moments
07. Ques - Could you narrate briefly how it
thereafter, I heard the running engine of the drilling 12. Ques - Did you recognize nor [sic]
transpired then?
machine but I can not identify the operator as my identify any of them?
line of view was obstructed by the curbed angle of
Ans - On the first hour of this specific dated and the panel where we are washing the ores. That
Ans - Honestly, no.36 (Emphasis supplied)
shift at about 0800hrs, while we were at the 8K afterwhich I heard somebody that they are now
stope, 850 level, Mr. Joel Gumatin approached going to blast the drilled holes but we remained in
me that he could not procure some needed amount our place continuing washing the stones. That after Lastly, the Joint Affidavit also points to the confession of
of money and if possible we will commit the blast Mr. Garcia and one other companion Madao wherein he particularly named respondent Liagao as
highgrading for that effect to settle his problem. whom I failed to identify due to foggy condition one of the miners involved in the act of highgrading.
That because I pity him, I just answered that if they caused by the explosive blasting then handed us the
could manage to do it then they could do it. additional newly unearth ores for washing. That
while were still busy washing, Gumatin approached Madao submitted two sworn statements. In his first sworn
us then told us that he will collect what was already statement37 dated September 16, 2000, Madao claimed his
08. Ques - Who was the companion of Mr. Gumatin washed and sorted and start to process the same. innocence. He did not incriminate any of the respondents.
when he approached you? That Gumatin took the items then started to pound However, in his second sworn statement 38 dated September
the ores atop of an LHD unit parked near the 20, 2000, Madao claimed to have knowledge of the act of
entrance of panel 2-East which was not used during highgrading and specifically named respondent Liagao as one
Ans - He was alone.
the shift. That after that, I stood up then of the miners involved, to wit:
subsequently proceeded to panel 2-West then
 LABSTAN-2SR
09. Ques - Do I understand that Mr. Suyam has and Madao, has no probative value to support evidence to decision of the NLRC. The said appeal was denied by the CA.
companions and had drilled first the flooring of that warrant the dismissal of the respondents. Chambers and The case was then elevated to this Court through a petition for
roadway before blasting it? Daguio did not identify the miners involved in the act of review, entitled Thomas Garcia v. Court of Appeals, docketed
highgrading. In addition, Damoslog’s first and second sworn as G.R. No. 162554. However, the same was denied with
statements did not implicate respondents, and Madao finality for having been filed out of time. 50 In effect, it serves
Ans - Yes, that is true I saw Suyam and Gumatin
recanted his statement implicating respondent Liagao. As to estop the respondents from praying for their reinstatement
transferred [sic] their assigned drilling machine at
earlier discussed, the sworn statements and joint affidavits of in the present case. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of
the said roadway and drilled the area with the
the sources do not corroborate but actually cast doubt as to judgment, which is also known as "reclusion of issues" or
company of Garcia, Kitoyan, Arocod, Damian, the veracity of the statements in the Joint Affidavit. "collateral estoppel," issues actually and directly resolved in a
Fegsar and Liagao.39 (Emphasis supplied)
former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between
the same parties involving a different cause of
The second ground is not plausible.
Nonetheless, the second sworn statement of Madao is not action.51 Applied to the present case, the "former suit" refers
sufficient to find Liagao guilty of highgrading. In a Joint to CA-G.R. SP No. 75457 wherein the CA ordered separation
Affidavit40which he executed with respondent Tundagui, While the Court agrees that the job of the respondents, as pay instead of reinstatement and G.R. No. 162554 wherein
Madao made the following declarations: miners, although generally described as menial, is this Court denied the petition for review filed by respondents
nevertheless of such nature as to require a substantial amount together with other dismissed workers. The "future case" is
of trust and confidence on the part of petitioner,43 the rule that the present case in which the petitioner is Lepanto
When I, MAXIMO MADAO reported for work on Consolidated Mining Company assailing the validity of the CA
proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required to terminate an
September 16, 2000, I am being required to appear Decision declaring the dismissal of respondents to be illegal.
employee on the charge of loss of confidence, and that it is
at the security investigation office. After quitting Reinstatement was not an issue raised by herein petitioner.
sufficient that there be some basis for such loss of confidence,
time I went to the security office and was surprised Respondents cannot now be allowed to raise the same in the
is not absolute.44
to learn that my name is among those listed persons petition filed by petitioner, for that would circumvent the
who were seen by Mr. Chambers committing acts of finality of judgment as to separation pay insofar as
highgrading on September 15, 2000. However, The right of an employer to dismiss an employee on the respondents are concerned.
when I quit work on September 20, 2000 I was ground that it has lost its trust and confidence in him must not
again called through telephone to appear at the be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.45 In order that
security office. Investigator Felimon Ringor told me loss of trust and confidence may be considered as a valid WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of
that I will give another statement and convinced to ground for an employee’s dismissal, it must be substantial and the Court of Appeals dated November 7, 2003 and its
tell me all the names of the persons assigned thereat not arbitrary, and must be founded on clearly established facts Resolution dated April 15, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 75860
with the promise that I will report for work. With sufficient to warrant the employee’s separation from work.46 are AFFIRMED.
my limited education having not finished grade 1, I
was made to give my statement on questions and
In the present case, the Court reiterates that the evidence Double costs against petitioner.
answers which are self-incriminating and
is not substantial to hold respondents guilty of highgrading
knowingly mentioned names of persons who are
so as to warrant the dismissal of respondents.
innocent. Worst, when I got my copy and the SO ORDERED.
contents were fully explained to me by our legal
counsel I was surprised that it was duly notarized Moreover, it is a well-settled doctrine that if doubts exist
when in fact and in truth after I gave my statement between the evidence presented by the employer and the
I did not appear before Atty. Nina Fe Lazaga-Raffols employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the
for swearing. With this circumstances, I hereby latter. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between
RETRACT my statement dated September 20, a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the
2000 for being self incriminatory unassisted by my evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing,
counsel or union representative and hereby should be resolved in the former’s favor. The policy is to
ADAPTS [sic] and RETAINS my sworn statement extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can
dated September 16, 2000.41 (Emphasis supplied) avail themselves of the benefits under the law, which is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give
maximum aid and protection to labor.47
In labor cases, in which technical rules of procedure are not to
be strictly applied if the result would be detrimental to the
workingman, an affidavit of desistance gains added Lastly, respondents’ prayer in their Comment48 and
importance in the absence of any evidence on record explicitly Memorandum,49 that the CA Decision be modified by
showing that the dismissed employee committed the act ordering their reinstatement to their former positions without
which caused the dismissal.42 Accordingly, the Court cannot loss of seniority rights and with payment of full backwages
turn a blind eye and disregard Madao’s recantation, as it from their alleged dismissal up to date of reinstatement,
serves to cast doubt as to the guilt of respondent Liagao. deserves scant consideration. Respondents are estopped from
claiming their right to reinstatement. Records show that
respondents along with their co-accused, filed an appeal with
Based on the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the Joint
the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 75457 questioning the
Affidavit, being sourced from Chambers, Damoslog, Daguio