Soco v. Mercantile Corporation of Davao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Domiciano Soco, President of MERCO Employees Labor Union (MELU), was employed as a driver by Mercantile Corporation of Davao (MERCO). MERCO investigated Soco for allegedly using company vehicle and time for union activities, specifically to facilitate a transfer of affiliation from FFW to SPFL, in violation of Company Rule No. 19(a). Soco deviated from his route on January 25, 1979, to talk to a co-employee off-duty and failed to report to his supervisor to explain the deviation. MERCO wrote to FFW requesting a grievance conference, but Soco expressed unwillingness to attend. Consequently, MERCO suspended Soco for five days for violating Company Rule No. 19(a) and filed a report with the Ministry of Labor. On February 13, 1979, Soco again deviated from his route after deliveries to visit the SPFL Union office. MERCO's manager observed the company vehicle parked outside and later removed the rotor. Soco was advised to report to his office to explain but did not comply. MERCO again requested a grievance conference, which Soco's union informed MERCO would not be held as Soco found it unnecessary. Procedural History: On February 14, 1979, Soco filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against MERCO. On February 21, 1979, Soco was placed on preventive suspension pending MERCO's application for clearance to terminate his services, filed on February 22, 1979. MERCO opposed Soco's unfair labor practice complaint. The two cases were consolidated. The Regional Director granted MERCO's application for termination and dismissed Soco's unfair labor practice complaint. This order was affirmed by the Deputy Minister of Labor on October 25, 1979. Soco's appeal was dismissed, leading to the filing of the instant petition for certiorari. The Petition: Soco assails the Deputy Minister's order, alleging grave abuse of discretion. He contends that the Regional Director lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practice cases and that his dismissal was unwarranted, violating his security of tenure, especially given his 18 years of service and minimal damage to the company.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Director had jurisdiction to hear and decide the unfair labor practice case. Whether the petitioner's dismissal was warranted based on violations of company rules. Whether the dismissal violated the petitioner's security of tenure and whether the penalty of dismissal was commensurate to the offense, considering the circumstances.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. However, respondent Mercantile Corporation of Davao (MERCO) is ordered to grant the petitioner separation pay, equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of his service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that the petitioner is estopped from questioning the Regional Director's jurisdiction. By voluntarily submitting to the proceedings, presenting evidence, and seeking affirmative relief without challenging the Director's power, Soco waived his right to later assail the jurisdiction after an adverse decision. The Court reiterated the principle that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a tribunal to secure affirmative relief and then repudiate that jurisdiction when the outcome is unfavorable, citing Tijam v. Sibonghanoy and Ching v. Ramolete. This doctrine prevents the undesirable practice of parties speculating on the outcome of litigation before questioning the court's authority. On the issue of warranted dismissal: The Court affirmed the findings of the Regional Director and Deputy Minister that Soco violated Company Rule No. 19(a) twice. The evidence showed Soco deviating from his route and using the company vehicle for personal purposes during working hours, even being caught by the company manager on the second instance. The Court emphasized that employers have the prerogative to enact reasonable rules for business conduct and to impose disciplinary measures for their enforcement. Soco's repeated violations, coupled with his refusal to explain or attend grievance conferences, justified his dismissal. On the issue of security of tenure and proportionality of penalty: While acknowledging Soco's 18 years of service, the Court found that the employer's prerogative to enforce rules outweighed this consideration in light of the repeated violations and Soco's contumacious behavior. The Court noted that condoning such conduct would erode discipline within the company. However, in equitable consideration of Soco's long service, the Court deemed it appropriate to award separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service, as a form of relief despite the dismissal.
Main Doctrine
A party who voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of a tribunal and participates in the proceedings, even by asking for affirmative relief, cannot later question the tribunal's jurisdiction after an adverse decision has been rendered. Furthermore, an employer has the prerogative to enforce reasonable rules and regulations, and repeated violations thereof, coupled with a refusal to explain or attend grievance conferences, can justify termination, though separation pay may be granted in consideration of long service.