Aparente, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rolando Aparante, Sr., employed by Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) for eighteen years, was dismissed on May 12, 1988, for alleged violation of company rules and regulations. The incident leading to his dismissal occurred on November 9, 1987, when, while driving a company advertising truck, Aparante sideswiped a ten-year-old girl, Marilyn Tejero. The girl sustained a skull fracture requiring hospitalization and surgery. It was subsequently discovered that Aparante was driving without a valid driver's license at the time of the accident. CCBPI incurred P19,534.45 in expenses related to Tejero's medical care, which were not reimbursed by the company's insurer due to Aparante's lack of a license. Procedural History: Aparante filed a case for illegal dismissal against CCBPI. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Aparante, ordering his reinstatement without loss of seniority but denying backwages and damages. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Initially, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. However, upon motion for reconsideration by CCBPI, the NLRC reversed its prior ruling. The NLRC then declared Aparante's dismissal valid, finding just cause and observance of due process, but ordered CCBPI to pay separation pay equivalent to one-half month's salary for every year of service as a measure of social justice. The Petition: Aparante filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the NLRC's resolution. He contended that the NLRC erred in finding that he was afforded due process, arguing he was not adequately informed of the damages incurred by the company and that the investigation focused solely on the lack of a driver's license. He also argued that the company implicitly tolerated his driving without a license and that his infraction, being a first offense over eighteen years of service, did not warrant dismissal, especially given the company's alleged prior knowledge of his license status. The petition challenges the NLRC's reversal of the Labor Arbiter's decision and its subsequent affirmation of the dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC erred in holding that the private respondent afforded the petitioner due process. Whether the NLRC erred in ordering the dismissal of the petitioner despite the alleged implicit tolerance of his driving without a license by the company, considering his attempt to mislead the company. Whether the infraction committed by the petitioner warrants the penalty of dismissal despite it being his first offense in 18 years of service, considering the damage caused and the company rules.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolution of the NLRC dated September 19, 1994, upholding the validity of the petitioner's dismissal and the award of separation pay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process: The Court held that the petitioner was afforded due process. He was aware that the investigation concerned the vehicular accident and its consequences, including the damages incurred by the company. The company rules clearly stipulated that discharge could be imposed for damages exceeding P5,000.00, a threshold met in this case. The Court reiterated that due process in administrative proceedings requires an opportunity to be heard, which was satisfied by the investigation and the opportunity to submit position papers. The petitioner's failure to refute the amount of damages before the labor arbiter created an adverse inference against him. On the issue of company tolerance and driving without a license: The Court found the petitioner's contention of company tolerance to be belied by his own admission that the company had prohibited him from driving after he lost his license and had requested him to secure a new one. Furthermore, the petitioner attempted to mislead the company during the investigation by claiming he had a valid license, which was later disproven when it was revealed the license was issued only after the accident. This demonstrated a willful act and an attempt to conceal his infraction, negating any claim of company tolerance. On the issue of whether the infraction warrants dismissal: The Court affirmed that the dismissal was justified by company rules and regulations. Although it was the petitioner's first offense, the damage caused to CCBPI exceeded P5,000.00, making discharge a proper penalty under Section 12 of Rule 005-85. The Court emphasized that company policies, if not grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are binding. Moreover, Article 282(a) of the Labor Code sanctions termination for serious misconduct or willful disobedience. The petitioner's act of driving without a license, which he attempted to conceal, constituted willful misconduct. The Court stated that the law does not distinguish between a first offender and a habitual delinquent when the totality of evidence warrants dismissal, and that the employer's right to discipline should not be undermined.
Main Doctrine
An employee's dismissal for violation of company rules and regulations, even if a first offense, is valid if the damage caused to the employer exceeds P5,000.00, provided due process was observed. In such cases, separation pay may be awarded as a measure of social justice if the infraction is not so reprehensible as to warrant complete disregard for the employee's long and loyal service.