1. What is the issue/s of the labor case below?

The Facts Respondent was employed by petitioner as packhouse operator in its La Union Plant for nineteen (19) years, from March 19, 1994^[6] until August 8, 2013.^[7] As packhouse operator, respondent ensures the safe and efficient operation of rotopackers, auto-bag placers, and cariramats, as well as their auxiliaries.^[8] At the time of his dismissal, he was earning a monthly salary of P29,988.00.^[9] On July 10, 2013, at around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, respondent was about to exit Gate 2 of petitioner's La Union Plant when the security guard on duty, Kristian Castillo (Castillo), asked him to submit himself and the backpack he was carrying for inspection.^[10] Respondent refused and confided to Castillo that he has a piece of scrap electrical wire in his bag.^[11] He also requested Castillo not to report the incident to the management, and asked the latter if respondent could bring the scrap wire outside the company premises; otherwise, he will return it to his locker in the Packhouse Office.^[12] However, Castillo did not agree, which prompted respondent to turn around and hurriedly go back to the said office where he took the scrap wire out of his bag.^[13] Soon thereafter, a security guard arrived and directed him to go to the Security Office where he was asked to submit a statement regarding the incident.^[14] In his statement,^[15] respondent admitted the incident, but asserted that he had no intention to steal.^[16] He explained that the 16-meter electrical wire was a mere scrap that he had asked from the contractor who removed it from the Packhouse Office.^[17] He also averred that as far as he knows, only scrap materials which are to be taken out of the company premises in bulk required a gate pass and that he had no idea that it was also necessary to takeout a piece of loose, scrap wire out of the company's premises.^[18] Respondent also clarified that he hurriedly turned around because he had decided to just return the scrap wire to the said office.^[19] On July 16, 2013, respondent received a Notice of Gap^[20] requiring him to explain within five (5) days therefrom why no disciplinary action, including termination, should be taken against him on account of the above-mentioned incident.^[21] He was also placed on preventive suspension for thirty (30) days effective immediately.^[22] In a statement^[23] dated July 23, 2013, respondent reiterated that he had no intention to steal from petitioner and that the scrap wire which he had asked from a contractor was already for disposal anyway.^[24] He also expressed his remorse over the incident and asked that he be given a chance to correct his mistake.^[25] Meetings of petitioner's Review Committee were thereafter conducted, with respondent and the security guards concerned in attendance.^[26] On August 8, 2013, petitioner issued a Decision/Resolution Memo^[27] dismissing from service respondent for serious misconduct.^[28] Petitioner found no merit in respondent's claim that he was unaware that a gate pass is required to take out a piece of scrap wire, pointing out that the same is incredulous since he had been working thereat for nineteen (19) years already.^[29] It also drew attention to the fact that respondent refused to submit his bag for inspection, which, according to petitioner, confirmed his intention to take the wire for his personal use.^[30] Further, petitioner emphasized that respondent's actions violated its rules which, among others, limit the use of company properties for business purposes only and mandate the employees, such as respondent, to be fair, honest, ethical, and act responsibly and with integrity.^[31] In a letter dated August 14, 2013, respondent sought reconsideration and prayed for a lower penalty, especially considering the length of his service to it and the lack of intent to steal.^[33] However, in a Memo^[34] dated August 28, 2013, petitioner denied respondent's appeal. Hence, on September 30, 2013, respondent filed a complaint^[35] before the NLRC for illegal dismissal and money claims, docketed as NLRC Case No. (CN) RAB-I-09-1102-13(LU-l), averring that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him was too harsh since he had acted in good faith in taking the piece of scrap wire.^[36] Respondent maintained that there was no wrongful intent on his part which would justify his dismissal from service for serious misconduct, considering that the contractor who removed it from the Packhouse Office led him to believe that the same was already for disposal.^[37] Meanwhile, petitioner countered that respondent's taking of the electrical wire for his personal use, without authority from the management, shows his intent to gain.^[38] In addition to this, it was highlighted that respondent refused to submit himself and his bag for inspection and attempted to corrupt Castillo by convincing him to refrain from reporting the incident to the management.^[39] These, coupled with his sudden fleeing from Gate 2, bolster the charge of serious misconduct against him.^[40] With respect to respondent's claim that the contractor who removed the wire from the Packhouse Office led him to believe that the same was already for disposal, petitioner pointed out that the contractor's personnel have issued statements belying respondent's claim and categorically stated that they did not give away any electrical wire to anyone.^[41]