Sanchez v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dominador Sanchez, a route salesman for respondent Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI-COLA) for 23 years, was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence due to alleged violations of company rules. An audit for April and May 1990 disclosed a breach of company policy, specifically the padding of 200 cases of "empties" during the "load in" procedure, resulting in an unaccounted excess worth P13,200.00. Additionally, 331 cases of "empties" worth P22,252.00 were allegedly inserted into his load sheet. Petitioner was charged with failure to remit/account for collections, borrowing money/empties/fulls from dealers, and stealing/dishonesty. In a letter dated July 18, 1990, petitioner admitted borrowing 200 cases of "empties" from a dealer to convert into cash for his wife's medical expenses. Procedural History: After being accorded procedural due process, petitioner was dismissed on November 16, 1990. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering reinstatement with back wages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), on appeal, reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit but ordering PEPSI-COLA to pay petitioner separation pay equivalent to one-half month's salary for every year of service, recognizing his long tenure. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, maintaining that his dismissal was illegal as there was no basis and that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in sustaining his termination. He argued that no evidence proved his failure to remit or account for collections, and that strict security measures made the alleged offenses inconceivable. Respondent PEPSI-COLA countered that petitioner's admission of borrowing "empties" and converting them to cash was sufficient ground for dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence, as it reduced his cash collection by P13,200.00.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion in sustaining petitioner's dismissal from the service; and whether petitioner's dismissal was for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Whether the petitioner is entitled to separation pay.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the NLRC dated November 22, 1995, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit but ordering respondent Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., to pay petitioner Dominador Sanchez separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and just cause for dismissal: The Court held that for certiorari to lie due to grave abuse of discretion, the abuse must be patent and gross, amounting to an evasion of duty or arbitrary action. Mere variance in evidentiary assessment between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC does not automatically warrant a full review by the Supreme Court. The NLRC's decision, if supported by substantial evidence, deserves respect. The Court reiterated that law and jurisprudence recognize an employer's right to dismiss employees due to loss of trust and confidence, as provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code, for fraud or willful breach of trust. If there is sufficient evidence of breach of trust or ample reason for the employer to distrust the employee, especially in positions of responsibility, the labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to dismiss. The Court found that petitioner's admission of borrowing 200 cases of "empties" from a dealer and converting them into cash, despite the strict security measures, constituted a serious, work-related offense and a breach of trust and confidence. This act alone was sufficient to sow mistrust and justify dismissal, even if there was no other evidence of failure to remit collections. The Court emphasized that the business of softdrink companies relies heavily on the trustworthiness of their salesmen, who are entrusted with company property and sales proceeds. Therefore, the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in upholding petitioner's termination. On the matter of separation pay: The Court upheld the NLRC's order for separation pay, recognizing petitioner's 23 years of service. The Court cited previous rulings where separation pay was granted even in cases of dismissal without illegal dismissal, as an equitable relief for long-serving employees. This was considered a proper concession given the petitioner's long tenure with the company.
Main Doctrine
An employer may terminate an employee for loss of trust and confidence, provided there is sufficient evidence to show a breach of trust or ample reason to distrust the employee, especially in positions of responsibility. The act complained of must be work-related and render the employee unfit to continue working for the employer. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; a reasonable belief of the employee's responsibility for misconduct is sufficient.