[ G.R. No. 66766. December 20, 1985 ] 224 Phil. 562
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 66766. December 20, 1985 ]
ZAMBOANGA CITY WATER DISTRICT, PETITIONER, VS. GENARO A. BARTOLOME, LABOR ARBITER PASTOR I. ALVAREZ AND COMMISSIONERS GUILLERMO C. MEDINA, GABRIEL M. GATCHALIAN AND MIGUEL B. VARELA OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, C.J.:
This is an illegal dismissal case. Genaro Bartolome was employed by the Zamboanga City Water District as meter reader in July, 1976. In a sworn statement dated February 9, 1981 before Agent Virgilio Mendez of the National Bureau of Investigation, Bartolome admitted that in September, 1980 he opened the water meter of Manuela Cahipe in order to enable his fellow-employee, Ulysis Lunjas, to adjust the meter reading. After the adjustment, Cahipe offered them a drink of beer (pp. 44-45, Rollo). Bartolome was supposed to read the water meter, not to open it. On the other hand, Lunjas in his sworn statement before Agent Mendez dated February 3, 1981 pointed to Bartolome as the one who tampered with the water meter by reversing the gear to get the desired meter reading (pp. 43-44, Rollo). Angel Fernando, another fellow-employee of Bartolome, in his sworn statement before Agent Mendez, declared that Bartolome confided to him that he was tampering with the water meters of the establishments in the market site (No. 8, Annex J, p. 54, Rollo). Fiscal Pablo I. Murillo found that at one time Cahipe’s water consumption of 60 cubic meters was reduced to 48 cubic meters because of meter tampering. He recommended her prosecution under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (pp. 39-41, Rollo). In a later resolution dated September 16, 1982, Fiscal Murillo “apologized” for his error in having overlooked Bartolome’s participation in the theft of water. He recommended that Bartolome be prosecuted for theft (p. 46, Rollo). The fact that the theft case against Bartolome was dismissed (p. 33, Rollo) would not preclude his removal. The conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not a condition precedent to his dismissal by his employer. The dropping by the city fiscal of the criminal complaint is not binding upon a labor tribunal (Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G. R. No. 68212, May 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 544, 547-548). Bartolome was dismissed by the petitioner in June, 1981. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. We find that Bartolome was guilty of gross misconduct which is a ground for dismissal under section 283 of the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he directed the reinstatement of Bartolome with backwages from June, 1981 to June, 1982 at P630 a month and when he ordered the payment to him of P4,560 as allowance for the same period plus P1,010 as 13th month pay (p. 25, Rollo). The NLRC should not have dismissed petitioner’s appeal from that decision. WHEREFORE, the NLRC resolution dismissing petitioner’s appeal and the decision of the Labor Arbiter are reversed and set aside. Bartolome’s complaint is dismissed. Costs against Bartolome. SO ORDERED. Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Cuevas, and Alampay, JJ., concur. Abad Santos, J., see dissenting opinion.