LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

vs
MAXIMO C. MAMARIL, EDUARDO C. FONTIVEROS, RICHARD PADONG, SIIARWIN
ESPIQUE, CLARITO ALBING, BALUDOY TOTANES, GERRY OLANIO, JOSEPH
DUMANGENG, REYNALD MANUIT, NARDO SINGIT, MICHAEL PANGDA, BENJAMIN
ASIDERA, ALVARO PATAGUE, JR., ANGELITO NAYRE, JR., JOSE MOJICA

G.R. No. 225725

January 6, 2019
Ponente: Justice Carpio

FACTS:

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (Lepanto) hired Maximo C. Mamaril (Mamaril) as

security guard and was assigned to the Security Reaction Force (SRF), a group of security
guards tasked to do special duties and one that would “react” accordingly in case of any
eventuality without pulling out posted security guards which would create a vacuum in the said
posts.

Lepanto Security Guard Intelligence Operatives Bangkilas and Velasco apprehended

Sumibang, an employee of Lepanto Mine Division who worked as a mucker, for stealing skinned
copper wires from the Lepanto Mine Division. Mamaril, the guard on duty at that time, was also
apprehended since he was the one who allegedly opened the main door of the Tubo Collar gate
and allegedly conspired with Sumibang so that the wires would be brought out and loaded into a
tricycle. Thereafter, Sumibang and Mamaril were both placed under preventive suspension by
the company for qualified theft of skinned copper wires.

At the formal hearing Mamaril denied that he conspired with Sumibang in the alleged qualified
theft. Mamaril claimed that he was on roving patrol at the NPC station when the theft occurred.
Mamaril also admitted that he left the main door hooked on its barrel bolt but did not padlock it
since the employees of the Diamond Drilling Corporation of the Philippines, who were
underground at that time, might come out anytime. Mamaril denied having knowledge and
participation in the theft of the skinned copper wires. Mamaril stated that his only fault, if any,
was that he forgot to secure the main door since padlocking the main door is a standard
operating procedure of the company if the man door is not in use.

After the investigation, finding Mamaril guilty of qualified theft for conspiring with Sumibang in
pilfering or stealing skinned copper wires Lepanto dismissed Mamaril from employment for
dishonesty and breach of trust and confidence.

Thereafter, Mamaril filed a complaint against Lepanto with the National Labor Relations
Commission Regional Arbitration Branch Administrative-Cordillera Region (NLRC RAB-CAR) for
illegal dismissal with claims for payment of his full backwages or in lieu thereof, payment of
separation pay, overtime pay, rest day pay, damages and attorney's fees.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Lepanto. The LA declared that as a security guard in
charge of the handling, custody, care, and protection of company property, Mamaril occupied a
position of trust and confidence. Thus, he was terminated for a just cause.

On appeal, the NLRC declared that the dismissal of Mamaril from the service was without any
valid and just cause and declared that Mamaril was entitled to separation pay and full
backwages.

Lepanto filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA
decided in favor of Mamaril and the other respondents.

ISSUE:Whether or not the dismissal of Mamaril was for a just cause.

1
RULING:

No. In dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer to show that the employee was
dismissed for a valid and just cause. Here, Lepanto dismissed Mamaril based on loss of trust
and confidence. To be a valid ground for dismissal, the loss of trust and confidence must be
based on a willful breach and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done
intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act
done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.

Here, Lepanto asserts that the dismissal of Mamaril due to loss of trust and confidence was
justified that guards Bangkilas and Velasco positively identified Mamaril as the one who opened
the man door since they were familiar with Mamaril's face, being their co-security guard.
However, Lepanto relied heavily on the affidavit and report made by Bangkilas and Velasco.
The two stated that while they were positioned at the back of a store along the national road
about 40 meters away from the Tubo Collar gate, they saw Mamaril open the man door gate
and then someone went out carrying something that was loaded into a tricycle, which lasted for
more or less a minute.

We agree with the NLRC and the CA that this can hardly be believed as an accurate report or
one founded on clearly established facts given that the incident occurred at night and the
witnesses were at a considerable distance away from the man door.

Also, even if Mamaril was occupying a position of trust as an ordinary security guard, to be a
valid cause for termination of employment, the act or acts constituting breach of trust must have
been done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely; and they must be founded on clearly
established facts.

Here, Lepanto merely assumed that Sumibang, who was caught red-handed on the qualified
theft of skinned copper wires, conspired with Mamaril to execute the wrongdoing. Aside from the
report filed by Bangkilas and Velasco, Lepanto did not present an admission from Sumibang
and his companion that Mamaril assisted them in any way to carry out their plan; neither did
Lepanto produce any other evidence corroborating what Bangkilas and Velasco allegedly saw.
Clearly, conspiracy cannot be readily presumed. It must be based on sufficient evidence to
stand.

Thus, based on the findings of the NLRC and the CA, we find that Mamaril was dismissed
without a just and valid cause and is thus entitled to be paid separation pay and full backwages,
inclusive of allowances and other benefits.

2
 EDGAR L. TORILLOS
vs
EASTGATE MARITIME CORPORATION,
F.J. LINES, INC., PANAMA, and EMMANUEL L. REGIO
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
EASTGATE MARITIME CORPORATION, F.J. LINES, INC.,
PANAMA, and EMMANUEL L. REGIO
vs
EDGAR L. TORILLOS,

G.R. No. 215904

July 10, 2019
Ponente: Justice Del Castillo

FACTS:

Eastgate Maritime Corporation (Eastgate), for and on behalf of its foreign principal, F.J. Lines,
Inc., Panama, continuously hired Torillos under various contracts. His last contract of
employment was dated November 3, 2010 on board the vessel MV Corona Lions as Chief Cook
and covered by the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).Torillos
underwent the requisite Pre-Employment Medical Examination and was found fit for sea duty.

While in the performance of his duties, Torillos experienced pain in his right leg radiating to his
lower extremities. He was brought to a hospital in Reihoku, Japan and he was diagnosed to be
suffering from urinary stone in his right urinary tract and was prescribed pain reliever drugs. Due
to persistent back and leg pains, he was again taken to a hospital in Newcastle, England where
the doctor recommended his repatriation for further management and treatment.

Upon arrival in Manila, Torillos was referred to the company-designated physicians of NGC
Medical Specialist Clinic, Inc., headed by Dr. Cruz, for medical evaluation, examination and
treatment. The Medical Report provides that he is suffering from Lumbar spondylosis is a
disorder in which discs and vertebrae degenerate, which requires treatment of 2-4 weeks.

Torillos continued with his physical therapy as well as occupational therapy with the company-
designated physicians. However, despite continued therapy sessions, he filed a complaint with
the NLRC against Eastgate for payment of permanent total disability benefits, medical
expenses, sickness allowance, damages and attorney's fees.

Torillos consulted an independent orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Cadag, who declared him unfit for
sea duty.

The Labor Arbiter found Torillos entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the CBA
amounting to US$118,800.00. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA and further granted
Torillo’s claim for attorney’s fees.

The CA affirmed with modification the decision of the NLRC. It disallowed the award of
US$118,800.00 under the CBA and ruled that Torillos failed to prove that his disability was
caused by an accident. The CA, nonetheless, held that Torillos can recover the maximum
disability benefits under the POEA-SEC, finding that Torillos' disability was work-related
because his job as chief cook has exposed him to heavy manual labor that caused back strain
and injury to his lumbar vertebrae.

ISSUE:Whether or not Torillo is entitled to Total Permanent Disability benefits under the CBA?

HELD:

No.We are not convinced as there was no evidence to show that Torillos met an accident on
board the vessel that caused his injury. There was no accident report or any medical report
issued indicating that Torillos figured in an accident while on board. Moreover, the Medical
Report issued by the physician who attended Torillos in Newcastle, England did not mention
that his injury was caused by an accident on board but instead noted that the primary cause of

3
the injury was: "Pain occurred at his right legup to his pelvis during standing for a long period of
time." Hence, Torillos' claim that he met an accident on board was based on pure allegations. It
is basic that Torillos must prove his own assertions and his failure to discharge the burden of
proving that he was covered by the CBA militates against his entitlement to any of its benefits.

The grant of disability benefits under the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA is confined only to
"xxx accident whilst in theemployment of the Company regardless of fault, including
accidentsoccurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as aseafarer is
reduced as a result thereof but excluding permanent disability dueto willful acts, xx x". As
discussed, Torillos failed to prove by substantial evidence that his disability was caused by an
accident, hence, there is no basis in awarding him disability benefits under the CBA.

As we find the CBA inapplicable, Torillos’ entitlement to disability benefits is therefore governed
by the POEA-SEC and relevant labor laws which are deemed written in the contract of
employment with Eastgate.