Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50122:gr-157076-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:32:25+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 157076 - PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - PIZZA HUT, ET AL. v. EVERGISTO ANTONIO E. SARMIENTO, ET AL.
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - PIZZA HUT and DANNY TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. EVERGISTO ANTONIO E.' SARMIENTO, RENATO GALLARDO, JR., Romario Cayabyab, Clark Cruz, Jeffrey Centeno, Philip Young, Jr., GEORGE FENOL, BIBIANO N. MEJORADA, JR., DENNIS SIOCO, DWIGHT LEYNES, ARMANDO ZAMORA, JR., and BERNADDETH MELENDREZ, Respondents.
This Petition for Review assails the Decision1 dated February 13, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64048 which affirmed the Resolution2 dated October 16, 2000 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-04-02243-96 (CA No. 017899-99). The NLRC had affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated September 24, 1998 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-04-02243-96.
Respondents Evergisto Antonio E. Sarmiento, Renato Gallardo, Jr., Romario Cayabyab, Clark Cruz, Jeffrey Centeno, Philip Young, Jr., George Fenol, Bibiano N. Mejorada, Jr., Dennis Sioco, Dwight Leynes, Armando Zamora, Jr., and Bernaddeth Melendrez are employees of Pizza Hut Philippines assigned in its SM North Edsa Branch.
On January 22, 1996, Erwin Sunga, a crew member, was caught sneaking out cooked pizza from the store. When questioned, Sunga gave petitioners a list of crew members (respondents) who were allegedly involved in the same act on previous occasions. Respondents denied any knowledge and participation in the alleged infraction. Thereafter, they were given notices of preventive suspension for dishonesty, to take effect on various dates in February 1996.
On April 2, 1996, respondents filed their complaint for illegal suspension and/or illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
In the meantime, the term contract of Melendrez expired. Young and Leynes were dismissed for dishonesty while the other respondents were suspended for sixty (60) days. On July 2, 1996, the suspended employees were reinstated.
The complainants who were illegally dismissed[,] Mr. Philip Young, Jr. and Mr. Dwight Leynes are hereby ordered to be reinstated to their former position without loss of seniority rights, benefits and privileges accruing thereto and payment of backwages effective June 24, 1996 up to September 24, 1998 the date of the promulgation of the decision without prejudice of a continuing computation of their backwages until the finality of the decision in accordance with the decision of Bustamante v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111681 - November 28, 1996, or for twenty seven (27) months based on their latest salary at the time of their illegal dismissal.
In complainant Bernadette Melendrez case, she should be paid her salary as backwages from the time she was illegally suspended up to the expiration date of her probationary contract of employment which is April 6, 1996.
7) Bibiano N. Mejorada, Jr.
All other issues and claims not consistent with the above findings are dismiss[ed] for lack of merit.
P18.25 x 4 hrs. x 26 days x 4.5 mos.
P18.25 x 4 hours x 26 days x 4.12 mos.
The assailed decision correctly excluded Solicio Arcibal, Jr. from the award. He is not one of the complainants who filed the original complaint as well as the amended complaint. His name only appeared in the position paper. Hence, his cause of action cannot be given due consideration.
The complaint filed by Philip Young, Jr. and Dwight Leynes is dismissed without prejudice.
THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND THEREIN FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY/GROUNDS FOR THE RESPONDENTS['] SUSPENSION . . .
Clearly, the main issue raised by petitioners is whether the appellate court erred in ruling that respondents were illegally suspended for failure of petitioners to sufficiently prove the alleged infraction committed by the respondents. Involved herein are questions of fact regarding the grounds for respondents' suspension, outside the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In any case, we have carefully examined the records before us and found nothing therein to warrant our departure from the agreed findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals as regards the invalidity of respondents' suspension.
In justifying respondents' suspension, petitioners relied on the handwritten statement of Sunga and the result of its administrative investigation. According to them, these pieces of evidence all prove that respondents also stole cooked pizza and sold the same for personal gain.
Suffice it to reiterate that nowhere in all the allegations of petitioners was there substantial proof that respondents participated in the alleged infraction. The handwritten statement of Sunga merely stated in general that respondents were his "co-groups in doing such anomalies." It never pointed to any of the respondents as having stolen cooked pizza and sold the same for personal gain.
In this case, there is no indication that respondents posed a serious threat to the life and property of petitioners or their co-employees. Neither is it shown that they were in such a position to unduly influence the outcome of an administrative investigation. Hence, their preventive suspension could not be justified, and the payment of their salary from their preventive suspension until their reinstatement is in order.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 13, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64048 is AFFIRMED.
' Appears as "F" in some parts of the records.
1 Rollo, pp. 43-49. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Danilo B. Pine concurring.
The total should be P190,344.00.
** The correct product is P7,819.76.
*** This should be P3,796.00.
**** The total should be P84,840.60.
9 Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 146397, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 258, 263.
10 Lopez v. National Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 149674, February 16, 2004, 423 SCRA 109, 113.
11 Austria v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 123646, July 14, 1999, 310 SCRA 293, 303.
12 Valiao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146621, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 543, 554.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.