Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines v. Alpuerto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jesse L. Alpuerto, an employee of Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc. (formerly Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.), was dismissed from his position as Finance Clerk. The dismissal stemmed from an incident where Alpuerto, on leave, took nine cases of soft drinks classified as 'bad orders' (BOs) from the company warehouse to take on a family trip. He replaced the cases with empty bottles and claimed he had verbal permission from a contractor's site operations manager and an inventory analyst to consume the BOs, which he believed were expired and thus permissible to take. The company, however, charged him with theft, serious misconduct, and loss of trust and confidence, asserting that his actions deprived them of potential tax deductions and violated company policy. Procedural History: Following his dismissal on January 8, 2013, Alpuerto filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint, finding Alpuerto's dismissal valid and his explanation not credible. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision, ruling that Alpuerto failed to prove the authenticity of documents supporting his claim that the products were expired and that the permission allegedly granted was for consumption, not removal from the premises. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC's ruling, finding that Alpuerto's dismissal was too harsh a penalty. The CA concluded that while Alpuerto's actions were imprudent, they were not attended by malice or intent to steal, and thus modified the penalty to a one-month suspension, ordering reinstatement with back pay. The Petition: Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. The petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred in reversing the findings of the LA and NLRC and in ruling that Alpuerto was illegally dismissed. They contend that Alpuerto's act constituted theft and a willful breach of trust, warranting dismissal. Alternatively, they argue that if the dismissal is deemed too harsh, they should not be liable for backwages due to their good faith in dismissing Alpuerto, and that separation pay in lieu of reinstatement should be granted given the nature of Alpuerto's position and the length of time since his dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed from employment. Whether respondent's act of taking company products constituted theft, serious misconduct, or willful breach of trust and confidence warranting dismissal. Whether the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate to the infraction committed by the respondent. Whether the respondent occupied a position of trust and confidence. Whether the breach of trust, if any, was willful.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 14, 2016, and the Resolution dated July 19, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139155 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the monetary award shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction thereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal and the gravity of the infraction: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that respondent's dismissal was too harsh a penalty for the infraction committed. While petitioner's company rules provided for dismissal in cases of theft or unauthorized taking, the Court reiterated that the strict application of such rules cannot preclude inquiry into whether the application would be harsh. The Court noted that theft, as a just cause for termination under Article 282 (now 297) of the Labor Code, requires intent. The circumstances surrounding respondent's act, including his prior inquiry about bad orders, bringing his family, replacing bottles, taking the items despite the guard's logbook, the purpose being for a family trip, and his immediate admission, negated wrongful intent. Therefore, his act was considered a mere exercise of bad judgment rather than serious misconduct or theft. On the issue of loss of trust and confidence: The Court agreed that the second requisite for loss of trust and confidence – the presence of a basis for the loss of trust – was not met because the breach of trust was not willful. The Court clarified that the breach must be intentional, knowing, and purposeful, not merely careless or inadvertent. Respondent's failure to comply with proper procedures stemmed from an erroneous belief that verbal permission from TRCI superiors was sufficient. This constituted carelessness, not a willful breach of trust, especially considering his 11 years of service without a prior derogatory record. On the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court found that dismissal was too severe a penalty. It emphasized that infractions should merit a penalty commensurate with the act, conduct, or omission. Considering respondent's 11 years of service without derogatory records and the relatively low value of the products (P1,215.00), a lesser penalty was deemed appropriate. The CA's imposition of a one-month suspension was found to be a reasonable and commensurate penalty. On backwages and reinstatement: The Court affirmed the CA's award of backwages, inclusive of allowances and benefits, from the date of dismissal until reinstatement, with a deduction for the one-month suspension. It rejected petitioner's alternative prayer for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, finding no compelling reason to deviate from the general rule of reinstatement for illegally dismissed employees, especially since respondent consistently prayed for reinstatement. The Court also clarified that imposing a one-month suspension and deleting backwages entirely would amount to double jeopardy for the same infraction. On the nature of the question presented: The Court determined that the issue of whether respondent's dismissal was warranted or too harsh was a question of law, as it involved the application of law to undisputed facts and did not require a review of the probative value of the evidence.
Main Doctrine
Dismissal from employment due to theft or unauthorized taking of company property, when done in good faith and without wrongful intent, is too harsh a penalty. The penalty must be commensurate with the infraction, considering the circumstances, the employee's length of service, and the value of the property involved. A lesser penalty, such as suspension, may be more appropriate.