Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines, petitioner, vs.

Carlos Lariosa and National Labor Relations Commission, respondents February 27, 1987 Fernan, J; Facts: Carlos Lariosa, worked in Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for 11 years as a tire builder. On July 27, 1983, on his way out the company premises, he was frisked by security Lizo and Olvez. They found 16 wool flannel swabs inside his bag tucked underneath his soiled clothes, all belonging to the company. He was theb dismissed effective on August 2, 1983 through letter of Ms. Villavicani, company president, based on stealing company property and loss of trust. Lariosa on the otherhand filed with the Labor and Employment a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found Laniosas dismissal justified but was reversed by the NLRC on appeal and held that Lianosa be reinstated but without backwages. Issue: Whether the act of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was within the realm on laws on Protection to Labor Law Held: From the records, it is likewise clear that Firestone did not act arbitrarily in terminating Linasosas services. Based on records, an investigation of the incident was conducted in the presence of Lianosa, the Union President, and the Security Guards who witnessed the attempted asportation. Thus, we cannot agree with the NLRCs conclusion that even if Firestone has substantial proof, it did not observe statutory requirements of due process. Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate an employee for serious misconduct. If there is sufficient evidence that an employee has been guilty of a breach of trust/ that his employer has ample reason to distrust him, the Labor tribunal cannot justly deny to the employer the authority to dismiss such employee. Wherefore, petition granted. NLRC decision is hereby set aside.

LACHES

Delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relation of the property or parties. It is based on public policy which for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim. ( Land Registration& Related Proceedings, Aquino, p.116 ) The failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. (Sotto vs. Torres 86 SCRA 154 ) Sleeping on ones right like prescription but no specific time involve, wherein in Gallang vs. CA it was held that failure of the registered owner to assert his right need not be for 50 years; nor the lesser period of 20 years as in Caragay Layno vs. CA supra. Such inaction still effectively bars suit even if such inaction were from 10 to 16 years. It was pointed out that the doctrine of laches can still be applied even if only 7 years had lapsed from the emergence of the cause of action to the institution of the cout of action.

Laches as Defense against Recovery The defense against laches, when proper, bars the registered title holder from asserting his rights over the registered property and from recovering it. This defense is an equitable one, does not concern itself with the character of the defendants title but only whether by plaintiffs unreasonable & inexcusable neglect, he is thus, barred to assert his claim. Laches may thus be invoked to bar reconveyance of the land to the registered owner only if there are intervening rights of third persons which may be affected or prejudiced if such land is returned to the registered owner. (Javier vs. Concepcion Jr., 94 SCRA 212)

Laches doctrine not strictly applied to near relative parties. trust and confidence ( Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 154, 183)

DIRECTO, Gepsy Gale B. Section A LTD