G.R. No.

198515, June 15, 2015

DOMINADOR MALABUNGA,* JR., Petitioner, v. CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

An employer may not blame its employees for losses caused by its own disorganized system and inept
personnel.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails: 1) the March 16, 2011 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111296 nullifying and setting aside the February 27, 2009 Decision 3 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CA Case No. 050647-06 and reinstating the July 31,
2006 Decision4 of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC NCR, Quezon City in NLRC NCR Case No. 03-02096-05; and 2)
the CA’s September 5, 2011 Resolution 5 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration 6 of the herein
assailed Decision.

FACT:

Petitioner Malabunga was accused of theft by respondent Cathay Pacific steel on account of missing
aluminium level lost in the warehouse which was not reported as lost until his return of another which
he borrowed. He was suspended for 30 days without pay and thus filed Illegal suspension before the
Labor Arbiter. The LA found him liable thus affirmed his suspension . He appealed the same to NLRC
which reversed and set aside the decision of the LA. Respondent Cathay appealed NLRC decision before
the CA in which the latter nullified the NLRC decision absolving the petitioner from theft and denied
petitioner’s MR.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner was illegally suspended.

RULING:

NO. The accusation or finding of theft against the petitioner cannot be affirmed on ground of doubt as to
his liability on the matter thus the suspension without pay is illegal. The theft cannot be attributed to
the petitioner on account of conflicting circumstances noted such as the declaration of the respondent’s
witness that what was returned by the petitioner was the untarnished aluminium level as opposed to
the one declared lost with remark “fabrication and with a dent”. It was noted that even if it was the
same material, the petitioner could not be liable for theft as there was no report of missing aluminium
level at that time. The loss was reported only at the time petitioner returned the level he borrowed.
The court declared that: In labor cases, issues of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve, as this Court
is not a trier of facts. However, in exceptional cases, this Court may be urged to resolve factual issues:
“[1] where there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or the
court below; or [2] when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts
submitted by the parties[;] or, [3] where the [Labor Arbiter] and the NLRC came up with conflicting
positions. From the foregoing, there are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the factual basis
of the charges against petitioner. These doubts shall be resolved in (his) favor in line with the policy
under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent
rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the
scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.
G.R. No. 160123               June 17, 2015

CENTRO PROJECT MANPOWER SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner,

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

In the interpretation of their provisions, labor contracts require the resolution of doubts in favor of the
laborer because of their being imbued with social justice considerations. This rule of interpretation is
demanded by the Labor Code1 and the Civil Code.2

Both the Labor Arbiter3 and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) 4 resolved the doubt in
favor of the employer when it held that respondent Aguinaldo Naluis (Naluis) had been properly
repatriated, and, consequently, not illegally dismissed. However, on April 23, 2003, the Court of Appeals
(CA) set aside their resolutions, and ruled to the contrary. 5 Hence, this appeal by the employer.

FACT:

Petitioner hired the respondent as plumber for deployment to Northern Marianas as plumber for 12
months contract. Petitioner and respondent made an addendum as to the commencement of
employment originally from date of arrival to destination to date of departure from the origin. Naluis
left for Northern Mariana on September 13, 1997, 9 the date of his actual deployment, and his
employment continued until his repatriation to the Philippines on June 3, 1998 allegedly due to the
expiration of the employment contract. Not having completed 12 months of work, he filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal against Centro Project.

The Labor Arbiter found that Centro Project had been justified m repatriating Naluis, and accordingly
dismissed the complaint, to wit:

This Office finds the repatriation of complainant to the Philippines NOT A DISMISSAL BUT AS A RESULT
OF THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS AS
PROVIDED FOR IN THE AUTHORIZATION FOR ENTRY.

xxxx

Although complainant has not served the twelve (12) months period stated in the Contract of
Employment, the Employer has no other alternative but to repatriate complainant otherwise, the
employer could be liable for violation of the Commonwealth's Immigration Rules x x x.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision concluding that respondent has an expired contract with
the petitioner. Respondent assailed this decision and appealed to the CA which set aside NLRC decision
saying that: the Authorization entry (AE) did not limit the stay of the respondent in Northern Marianas
and the petitioner breach the contract by ordering respondent’s repatriation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not AE categorically fixed the period of stay of Naluis; and that even the primary
Employment Contract clearly set the date for its expiration.

RULING:

It is fundamental that in the interpretation of contracts of employment, doubts are generally resolved in
favor of the worker.It is imperative to uphold this rule herein. Hence, any doubt or vagueness in the
provisions of the contract of employment should have been interpreted and resolved in favor of Naluis.
Undoubtedly, the term of the contract was 12 months. The AE could not be used as a valid cause for
pre-terminating the employment of Naluis. His repatriation was clearly a breach of the contract of
employment,