G.R. No.

198515 : June 15, 2015

DOMINADOR MALABUNGA, JR., Petitioner, v. CATHAY PACIFIC
STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation is a duly registered domestic
corporation engaged in manufacture of steel products. It hired petitioner
Dominador Malabunga Jr. as one of its machinists.
On July 9, 2004, an inventory was conducted at the company warehouse
and it was found that one aluminum level was issued to respondents
Fabrication Unit and another was issued to petitioner.
On July 11, 2004, petitioner returned an aluminum level to the
warehouse.
Thereafter, on July 24, 2004, petitioner was charged with theft of an
aluminum level. Respondent based its allegations on the statements of its
warehousemen alleging that petitioner returned an untarnished aluminum
level that was allegedly issued to the Fabrication Unit, that the discovery
of the theft was made on July 22, 2004 when another machinist borrowed
the aluminum level and found that it was the lost level issued to the
Fabrication Unit, that it was allegedly the lost aluminum level of the
Fabrication Unit since it has a dent on one side, and that petitioner must
have stolen the same from the Fabrication Unit in order to cover up for
the theft of the aluminum level issued to petitioner.
Petitioner, for his part, insists that the accusation against him was false,
baseless, and unfair, that the aluminum level he borrowed was the same
one he returned on July 11, 2004, that when he returned the same, the
warehousemen did not find anything unusual on the level and that he
cannot be faulted for the ineptness or inefficiency of respondent in
keeping track of its equipment.
On December 2, 2004, respondent suspended petitioner for a period of 30
days and required him to return the value of the lost aluminum level or
P280.00 through salary deductions. Thus, petitioner was suspended from
January 10, 2005 to February 13, 2005. Thereafter, he returned to work.
On March 2, 2005, petitioner filed a Complaint for Illegal Suspension with
the NLRC arguing that he should not be blamed for the loss of the
aluminum level and that blame should be pointed at respondents
warehousemen for their failure to maintain a system that would clearly

indicate the identity of borrowed tools and items. Petitioner also prays
that his suspension be declared illegal and that respondent be made to
pay his supposed salary from January 10 to February 13, 2005.
In its Decision, the Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners complaint giving
credence to the statements made by respondents warehousemen.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and ruled that the
statements of the warehousemen do not prove that it was petitioner who
took the aluminum level. Their statements only prove that an aluminum
level was lost and that the theft was discovered only when another
machinist sought to borrow an aluminum level. Moreover, it is absurd for
a thief to return the thing stolen as it would be entirely illogical and
contrary to ordinary human experience.
Respondent sought a reversal of the NLRCs decision in the CA. For its
part, the CA affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that
based on the statements of the warehousemen, petitioner did steal the
aluminum level. Furthermore, the CA held that petitioners defense of alibi
and denial could not be given credence in the face of positive
identification of the other witnesses.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred when it did not affirm the decision of
the NLRC?
HELD:
LABOR LAW: appreciation of factual matters in labor cases
In labor cases, findings of fact by the labor tribunals are normally given
credence by the Court as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
However, in exceptional cases, the Court may resolve factual issues such
as when 1) there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the
findings of the tribunal or the court below, 2) too much is concluded,
inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the
parties, and 3) the LA and the NLRC came up with conflicting positions.
Here, the LA, NLRC, and the CA all failed to appreciate the evidence which
would have exonerated the petitioner for theft. Respondent claims that
what petitioner returned to the warehouse was the Fabrication Units
aluminum level bearing the words Fabrication with a dent on one side.
However, records reveal that when the aluminum level was returned by
petitioner, it was untarnished. In other words, it did not contain any
engraving nor bear any dent, damage or scratch. This statement directly
contradicted the later statements of the warehousemen. Thus, the logical
conclusion is that petitioner did not commit the theft.

From the foregoing, the Court cannot sustain the view that petitioner
committed theft of company property. It could simply be because of
inefficient record keeping on the part of respondent. Thus, respondent
should be the one to bear the loss.
Petition GRANTED.