SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.148205.February28,2005]

COCACOLA BOTTLERS, PHILS., INC., petitioner, vs. KAPISANAN NGMALAYANGMANGGAGAWASACOCACOLAFFWandFLORENTINORAMIREZ,respondents.

DECISIONCALLEJO,SR.,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewoftheResolution[1]

oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.58012reversingtheResolutionoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)inNLRCNCRCASECA01834199.

TheAntecedents

Petitioner CocaCola Bottlers Phil., Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in themanufacture, sale and distribution of softdrinks. It maintains plants in various areas of thecountry, among others, in Calamba and Sta. Rosa, Laguna, in Lipa City and Balayan,BatangasinSta.Cruz,GumacainSanPabloCityandLucenaCity,QuezonProvinceinLasPiasCity,andDasmarias,Cavite.

OnJuly1,1982,thepetitionerhiredFlorentinoRamirezasdriverhelperwiththefollowingduties:

(a)asdriver,hechecksthetrucksoil,water,wheels,etc.(b)ashelper,heischargedofloadingandunloadingtrucksloadputtingbottlesinthe

coolersanddisplayscompanyproductstoeachoutletorcustomersstore.[2]

RamirezbecameamemberoftherespondentKapisananngMalayangManggagawaSalesForce Union, the bargaining representative of the rank andfile employees of the petitionercompany. In 1996, hewas the shop steward of the union at the companysBatangasSales

Office.[3]

Sometime in October 1996, it happened that the route salesman for Route M11 wasunavailabletomakehisusualroutes.SinceRamirezhadbeendrivingfortheroutesalesmanfor so long, the petitioner company decided to assign him as temporary replacement of theregularroutesalesmanforroutesM11,AMCandLPR.Thereafter,inaLetterdatedDecember5,1996,theOfficerinChargeoftheBatangasSalesOffice,VictorC.delaCruz,informedtheOfficerinChargeofDSSDistrict44,RolandoManzanares, thata reviewof thecopiesof theinvoicesrelatingtothetransactionsofRamirezinRt.M11revealedthefollowingdiscrepancies:(a)thenumberofcasesdeliveredtocustomers(b)emptybottlesretrievedfromthem,and(c)theamountsinSalesInvoicesNos.3212215,3288587,3288763,3288765and3288764,thus:

a.FinanceandCustomersCopiesofSalesInvoiceNo.3288765showingthedeliberateomissioninthefinancecopyofthedeliveryof25casesofSprite(8ounces)andtheabsenceintheCustomersCopyoftheretrievalof10casesofCoke(1.5liters).

b.FinanceandCustomersCopiesofSalesInvoiceNo.3288764,acomparisonofwhichshowsthattheretrievalofemptybottlesamountingtoTwoThousandTwoHundredFiftyPesos(P2,250.00)reflectedintheFinanceCopyashavingbeencollectedwasnotreflectedintheCustomersCopy.

c.FinanceandCustomersCopiesofSalesInvoiceNo.3212215whichshowsthattherefundofthirtythree(33)caseswasreflectedonlyintheFinanceCopy.

Ramirez received a Memorandum from District Office Nos. 44 and 45 requiring him toreporttothesaidofficestartingDecember5,1996untilsuchtimethathewouldbenotifiedof

theformalinvestigationofthechargesagainsthim.[4]

During the formal investigation conducted by a panel of investigators on December 20,1996,Ramirezwasnot representedbycounsel.Healsomanifested thathewaswaivinghisrighttoberepresentedbycounselwhenthemembersofthepanelaskedhimaboutit.Ramirezwasthenaskedtoexplainthediscrepanciessubjectofthecharges,andnarratedthefollowing:

(a)Re:SalesInvoiceNo.3212215.Ramirezunloadedtheproductsfromthedeliverytruckin themorning and delivered the same to the customer. He then gave a copy of the salesinvoice to thecustomer,whichshowed thequantityandpricesof theproductsdelivered.Hetoldthecustomertopreparethepaymentandthathewouldreturnlaterintheeveningtocollectthesame.Becausethecustomerdidnothaveenoughmoneyonhand,hecoveredthedeficitby returning33 casesof emptybottles,whichwas reflected in the copyof the sales invoiceforwarded to thesalesdepartment.Ramirez reasoned thathe failed tonote the returnof theemptybottlesinthecopyofsalesinvoicehelaterdeliveredtothecustomerbecausethelatterinformed him that such copy had beenmisplaced. Besides, Ramirez and the customer hadagreedthathe(Ramirez)wouldjustnotethereturnoftheemptybottlesonthecustomerscopyofthesalesinvoicethefollowingday.Ramirezpointedoutthatthepetitionercompanydidnotsufferanylossbecausetheemptybottleswereturnedovertoit.

(b)Re:Sales InvoiceNo.3288587datedOctober12,1996.Ramirezadmitted that therethe customermadean overpayment ofP504.00. He claimed, however, that he returned theamount to the customer from his own money, and retained the P504.00 by way ofreimbursement for the amount he had earlier given to the customer. Hence, the petitionercompanyandthecustomerdidnotsufferanyloss.

(c)Re:SalesInvoiceNo.3288763datedOctober14,1996.Ramirezclaimedthathehaderroneously written Sales Invoice No. 3288763 instead of Sales Invoice No. 3288765(customers copy) in his RHF Report dated October 14, 1996. He also claimed to haveoverlookedSalesInvoiceNo.3288763whenheissuedareceipttocustomersIglesiaorDolorHernandez,andmistakenlyissuedSalesInvoiceNo.3288763.Healsodeclaredthathefailedto include Sales Invoice No. 3288765 in his RHF Report as one of the cancelled invoicesbecauseitwasalreadytoolateintheevening.

(d) Re: Sales Invoice No. 3288764. Ramirez declared that it was only after he hadunloadedanddeliveredtheproductstothecustomerandhadgivenacopyofthesalesinvoiceto the latter that he realized that the customer had returned several cases of empty bottlesworthP2,250.00.Hepointedoutthatheindicatedthesameinthecopyofthesalesinvoicehesubmittedtothecompany,butfailedtodosointhecustomerscopyofthesalesinvoice.

OnFebruary11,1997,Ramirezreceivedanoticefromthecompanyinforminghimthathisserviceswerebeingterminatedthatbasedontheinvestigation,itwasclearlyestablishedthathe violated Sections 10 and 12 of the CCBPI Employees Code of Disciplinary Rules andRegulations (Red Book) and that coupled with his prior infractions, his employment wasterminatedeffectiveFebruary12,1997.

OnMarch17,1997,RamirezandtheunionfiledaComplaint[5]

forunfairlaborpracticeandillegal dismissal against the companywith the Arbitration Branch of theNLRC, docketed asRABIV3886297B.Ramirezclaimed thatalthoughhewasmerelyanactingsalesman, thealleged violations for which he was dismissed, i.e., Sections 10 and 12 of the petitionercompanys rulesand regulations, particularly designatedas fictitious salesand falsificationofcompanyreports,werenormallyonlyforfullfledgedsalesmen.Hepointedoutthat:

Firstly,respondentcompanysactofgroundingindividualcomplainantonallegedshortageinthebodega,hasnofactualbasis,asnoactualinventorywasconductedand

Secondly,individualcomplainantwasterminatedforviolationswhicharealientohisofficialfunctionsanddesignationand

Lastly,asofficeroftheunion,individualcomplainantwasterminatedatthetimethecollectivebargainingnegotiationswasunderwayandatitscriticalstage.

Thesefactsclearlyestablishaclassiccaseofanemployerharassinganofficialoftheunion,whichwehumblysubmitasaclearcaseofinterferencebyanemployerintherightoftheworkerstoself

organizationandtocollectivebargaining.[6]

Ramirez likewise claimed that hewas denied of his right to due process, based on thefollowinggrounds:

Firstly,individualcomplainantwasdismissedwithouthavingbeenfirstissuedanoticeofdismissalwhichsupposedlyshouldcontainthechargesagainsthim,whichwouldbemadeasbasisforhistermination.

Secondly,individualcomplainantwasdismissedwithoutaffordinghimanampleopportunitytodefendhimself,ashewasnotnotifiedinadvanceofthesubjectoftheadministrativeinvestigation.

Thirdly,individualcomplainantwasterminatedwithoutjustandvalidcause,andingrossviolationofhisrighttodueprocess.

Lastly,individualcomplainantwasterminatedbyrespondentsinutterbadfaith,asthedecisiononthesaidterminationwasarrivedat,withoutanyjustandvalidcause.Simplyput,respondentssimplyacted

oppressively,malevolently,andwithgraveabuseofprerogatives.[7]

Foritspart,thepetitionercompanyallegedthatthedismissalofRamirezwasbasedonthefactsunearthedduringtheformalinvestigation,andthathewasguiltyofseriousmisconduct,avalid ground for termination of employment. Even if he was occupying the position of routedriver/helper, hewas nevertheless performing the functions and duties of a route salesman,and,assuch,henotonlycommittedfraud,butalsowillfullybreachedthetrustandconfidencereposedonhimby thepetitionercompany.According to thepetitionercompany,consideringthe sanctions imposed on Ramirez for prior breaches of company rules, his dismissal from

employmentwaswithbasis.ThepetitionercompanyalsoinsistedthatRamirezwasaccordedhisrighttodueprocess:hewasnotifiedofthechargesagainsthim,wassubjectedtoaformalinvestigationduringwhichhewasallowedtoexplainthediscrepancies,andwasnotifiedoftheoutcomethereof,aswellasthebasesoftheterminationofhisemployment.

OnJuly31,1998,theLaborArbiter(LA)renderedjudgment[8]

dismissingthecomplaintforlackofmerit.TheLA found thatbasedon theevidence, therewasa justifiablebasis for thedismissalofRamirez.AccordingtotheLA,itwasofnomomentthattheofficialdesignationofRamirez was driverhelper, since he committed the infractions while he was performing thefunctions of an acting salesman. The LA further found that due process had been complied

with.[9]

Aggrieved,Ramirezappealed thedecision to theNLRC,docketedasNLRCNCRCASECA01834199.

Ramirez argued that any errors or discrepancies hemay have committed while he wasassignedasroutesalesmanwereexcusable.Hepointedoutthathewasmerelyadriver/helperandhadnoformaltrainingasroutesalesmanbeforesuchtemporarydesignation.Heaverredthat the petitioner company dismissed him because of the ongoing collective bargainingnegotiationswhichweretheninacriticalstage.

OnSeptember20,1999,theNLRCrenderedaResolution[10]

affirmingthedecisionoftheLA. Itdeclared that thepetitionercompanyhadadduceddocumentaryevidence toshow thatRamirezfailedtojustifywhytheamountofP2,250.00wasnotreflectedinthecustomerscopyof Sales Invoice No. 3288764. According to the NLRC, Ramirez also failed to justify theomissionofthereturnof33casesofcompanyproductsinthecustomerscopyofSalesInvoiceNo. 3212215. The NLRC found the same to be sufficient basis for a finding of gravemisconduct,which renderedRamirez unworthy of the trust and confidence demandedof hisposition as an acting salesman. Citing the ruling of this Court in Philippine Commercial

InternationalBankv. Jacinto,[11]

theNLRCdeclared thatRamirezsclaim that thepenaltyofdismissalwastooharshanddisproportionateonaccountofhisbeingamereactingsalesman,wasuntenable.

TheNLRC,likewise,rejectedRamirezspleaofdenialofdueprocess,declaringthathewasaccordedthechancetobeheardonthecomplaintagainsthimandtoadduceevidenceonhisbehalf.ItruledthatRamirezfailedtoproveillmotiveonthepartofthepetitionercompanyfordismissinghim.

Upon the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Ramirez filed a petition for certiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtwiththeCourtofAppeals(CA),docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.58012whereinheallegedthefollowing:

1.THEHONORABLEPUBLICRESPONDENTSERIOUSLYERRED,THEREBYCOMMITTINGGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETION,AMOUNTINGTOLACKAND/OREXCESSOFJURISDICTION,INAFFIRMINGTHELABORARBITERSDECISIONUPHOLDINGTHELEGALITYOFINDIVIDUALPETITIONERSDISMISSAL,CONSIDERINGTHAT:

A.INDIVIDUALPETITIONERWASOFFICIALLYDESIGNATEDASDRIVERHELPER,APOSITIONWHICHDOESNOTINVOLVED(sic)THEELEMENTOFTRUSTANDCONFIDENCE,YET,WASTERMINATEDFORALLEGEDLOSSOFTRUSTANDCONFIDENCE

B.INDIVIDUALPETITIONER,ASADRIVERHELPERWASMERELYTEMPORARILYASSIGNEDASACTINGSALESMANWHENTHEALLEGEDDISCREPANCYINTHETRANSACTIONDOCUMENTSTOOKPLACE

C.INDIVIDUALPETITIONERWASNOTSPECIFICALLYTRAINEDASSALESMAN,THUS,CANNOTBEEXPECTEDTOPERFORMINTHESAMEMANNERASANOFFICIALONE,WHOAREPRECISELYTRAINEDFORTHEENDEAVOR.

2.THEHONORABLEPUBLICRESPONDENTCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETION,AMOUNTINGTOLACKAND/OREXCESSOFJURISDICTION,INFINDINGTHATINDIVIDUALPETITIONERWASVALIDLYDISMISSEDFORLOSSOFTRUSTANDCONFIDENCE,AS,EVENIFTHESAIDGROUNDREALLYEXISTS,HECOULDHAVEBEENALLOWEDTOCONTINUEHISEMPLOYMENT,ASDRIVERHELPERHISOFFICIALDESIGNATION,APOSITIONWHICHDOESNOTINVOLVEANELEMENTOFTRUSTANDCONFIDENCE.

3.THEHONORABLEPUBLICRESPONDENT,LIKETHEHONORABLELABORARBITERAQUO,COMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETION,AMOUNTINGTOLACKAND/OREXCESSOFJURISDICTION,INDECLARINGTHATCOMPLAINANTSDESIGNATIONATTHETIMEOFTHEINFRACTIONISOFNOMOMENT.

4.INSUM,THEHONORABLEPUBLICRESPONDENTCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETION,AMOUNTINGTOLACKAND/OREXCESSOFJURISDICTION,INNOTFINDINGPRIVATERESPONDENTGUILTYOFILLEGALDISMISSALANDUNFAIRLABORPRACTICEANDINNOTORDERINGPRIVATERESPONDENTTOREINSTATEINDIVIDUALPETITIONERTOHISFORMERPOSITIONASDRIVERHELPER,ANDTOPAYFULLBACKWAGES,

DAMAGESANDATTORNEYSFEES.[12]

InaDecisiondatedOctober25,2000, theCAdismissedthepetition.[13]

It ruledthat thepetitionersdesignationatthetimeoftheinfractionwasofnomomentwhenheagreedtobeanacting salesman for Route M11, AMC and LPR, he actually performed the duties of asalesman, and in so doing, assumed the responsibilities of the position. The CA furtherratiocinatedthatnotwithstandingRamirezslackoftraining,hehadassumedandperformedthedutiesofasalesmanhence,hewasobligatedtodosowithduecare,dedication,andwithdueregardtotheexerciseofthedegreeofdiligencetopreventthecommissionofanyseriouserror,mistakeorblunderonhispart.

TheCAalsoruledthatRamirezhadnotbeendeniedhisrighttodueprocess.Itconcludedthatthefalsificationofthesalesinvoicesandreceiptsviolatedcompanyrulesandpolicy,andthathewasguiltyofgrossmisconductwhichalsoconstitutedabreachoftrustandconfidencereposedonhimbythepetitionercompany.

Undaunted,thepetitionerfiledamotionforthereconsiderationofthedecisioncontendingthat:

THEHONORABLECOURTSERIOUSLYERREDWHENITHELDTHATTHEFINDINGANDDECLARATIONOFTHELABORARBITERANDPUBLICRESPONDENTTHATINDIVIDUALPETITIONERSDESIGNATIONATTHETIMEOFTHEINFRACTIONISOFNOMOMENTHAVE

LEGALBASIS.[14]

THEHONORABLECOURTSERIOUSLYERREDWHENITFAILEDTOCONSIDERTHATINDIVIDUALPETITIONERWASOFFICIALLYDESIGNATEDASDRIVERHELPER,APOSITIONWHICHDOESNOTINVOLVED(sic)THEELEMENTOFTRUSTANDCONFIDENCE.[15]

THEHONORABLECOURTSERIOUSLYERREDINNOTFINDINGTHATTHEINDIVIDUAL

PETITIONERSRIGHTTODUEPROCESSWASGROSSLYVIOLATED.[16]

This time, the CA foundmerit in petitioners cause and, on January 30, 2001, issued aResolutiongrantingthesaidmotion,andsetasideitsearlierruling.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionersmotionforreconsiderationisherebyGRANTED,andOurdecisionof25October2000isvacated.TheassailedresolutionsofpublicrespondentdatedSeptember20,1999andDecember21,1999areREVERSEDandSETASIDE,andanewjudgmentisrendered,orderingtherespondentcompanytoreinstatepetitionerFlorentinoA.Ramireztohisjobasdriverhelperwithoutlossofseniorityandotherrights,andtopayhimhisfullbackwages,allowancesandotherbenefitsuntilhisretirement,withoutdiminution,ortheirmonetaryequivalent,plus10%as

attorneysfees.Costsagainstprivaterespondent.[17]

TheCA ratiocinated that asanacting salesmanwhodidnot possess the requiredbasictrainingofaroutesalesman,Ramirezwasmadetodischargethedutiesofaroutesalesman.Italso emphasized that as driver/helper, his job was not a position reposed with trust andconfidence. Thus, theCAdeclared that the petitioner committed amere oversight of certaininternalcontrolproceduresintheproperrecordingofhissalesandothertransactions,resultingintheshortageinonetransaction,offsetbyanoverageinanother.Whilehewasinefficientandincompetentasaroutesalesman,hewasnotsoasadriver/helper.Considering thathewasmerelydischarging the functionsof a salesman inanacting capacity, and that thepetitionercompanydidnotsufferanylossonaccountoftheviolationsand/oromissionsofRamirez,thepenalty of dismissal was too harsh. The CA also ruled that there was no dishonesty or ademonstrationofmoralperversenessaswouldjustifytheclaimedlossofconfidenceattendanttothejob,and,assuch,gaveRamirezthebenefitofthedoubt.

Ontheissueofdueprocess,theCAruledthatthepetitionerwasnotaffordeddueprocessbecause the panel of investigators focused on Ramirezs violations of internal control

proceduresinsteadofthesubstanceofthechargesagainsthim.[18]

Aggrieved by the appellate courts volte face, the petitioner company filed the instantpetitionforreviewoncertiorari,allegingthat:

THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSDECIDEDAQUESTIONOFSUBSTANCECONTRARYTOLAWANDTHESETTLEDRULINGSOFTHESUPREMECOURTINTHAT:

A.THERESPONDENTWASLAWFULLYTERMINATEDFROMEMPLOYMENT.

B.THECOURTOFAPPEALSACTEDWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINRENDERINGTHEQUESTIONEDRESOLUTIONS.

C.THEFINDINGSOFFACTBYTHECOURTOFAPPEALSARECONTRARYTOTHOSEOFTHEHONORABLELABORARBITERANDTHENATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSIONANDAREMERECONCLUSIONSREACHEDWITHOUTCITATIONOR

SPECIFICEVIDENCEAND/ORAREPREMISEDONTHEPURPORTEDABSENCEOF

EVIDENCECONTRADICTEDBYTHEEVIDENCEONRECORD.[19]

The core issue for resolution is whether or not respondent Florentino Ramirez wasdismissedbythepetitionerwithoutjustorvalidcause.TheRespondentCommittedIrregularitiesinthePerformanceofHisDutiesasRouteSalesman

We find, as the CA did in its assailed Resolution, that the respondent, by his acts andomissions,committedirregularitiesintheperformanceofhisduties.HemadeitappearinthecustomerscopyofSales InvoiceNo.3212215that the latter returned33casesof familysizeemptybottlesvaluedatP4,092.00however,suchtransactionwasnotreflectedintheinvoicesubmittedbyhimtothepetitionercompany.

Aperusalofthecustomerscopyofthesalesinvoicewouldshowthatthecustomerowedthe petitioner company P9,045.00. However, in the petitioner companys copy of the salesinvoice,therespondentdeclaredthatthecustomerreturned33casesofemptybottlesvaluedatP4,092.00hence,thecustomerowedthepetitioneronlyP4,953.40whichthecustomerpaid.The respondent failed to indicate the return of the empty bottles in the petitioner companyscopyofthesalesinvoice.Theexplanationoftherespondent,thatwhileheintendedtocorrectthecustomerscopyofthesalesinvoicehewasunabletodosobecausesuchcustomerscopyhadbeenmisplacedbythecustomer,isunacceptable.Therespondentshouldhavepresentedthe affidavit of the customer to corroborate such claim. The fact that it turned out that thecustomerstillhadhiscopyofthesalesinvoicedoesnotsitwellwiththerespondentscause.Infinethen,theexplanationgivenbytherespondentduringthepanelinvestigationisuntrue.

There is no dispute that the respondent overcharged the customer in Sales InvoiceNo.3288587intheamountofP504.00,andthat therespondentreturnedtheoverpayment to thecustomer. However, the respondent was burdened to give a valid explanation for suchoverchargingonthecustomer,whichhefailedtodo.

The respondent also admitted that he failed to indicate in the customers copy of SalesInvoiceNo.3288764thecustomersretrievalof210casesofemptyCocaColabottlesofvariedsizes, amounting to P2,250.00. The respondent failed to give a valid explanation for hisomission,althoughthereappears tobenodoubt that, indeed, thecustomerreturnedthe210emptybottlestothepetitionerthroughhim.

ThePenaltyofDismissalFortheRespondentsInfractionis,however,TooSevere

Inordertoeffectavaliddismissalofanemployee,thelawrequiresthattherebejustandvalidcauseasprovidedinArticle282andthattheemployeewasaffordedanopportunitytobe

heard and to defend himself.[20]

Pursuant to Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employeesservicescanbeterminatedforthefollowingjustcauses:

(a)Seriousmisconductorwillfuldisobediencebytheemployeeofthelawfulordersofhisemployeror

representativeinconnectionwithhiswork

(b)Grossandhabitualneglectbytheemployeeofhisduties

(c)Fraudorwillfulbreachbytheemployeeofthetrustreposedinhimbyhisemployerordulyauthorizedrepresentative.

(d)Commissionofacrimeoroffensebytheemployeeagainstthepersonofhisemployeroranyimmediatememberofhisfamilyorhisdutyauthorizedrepresentativeand

(e)Othercausesanalogoustotheforegoing.

In termination disputes, the burdenof proof is alwayson theemployer to prove that the

dismissalwas for a just and valid cause.[21]

Considering the nature of the charges and thepenaltiestherefor,thepetitionerisboundtoadduceclearandconvincingevidencetoprovethesame.

We have always held that an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the

promulgationofpolicies,rulesandregulationsonworkrelatedactivitiesoftheemployees.[22]

Itisrecognizedthatcompanypoliciesandregulations,unlessshowntobegrosslyoppressiveorcontrarytolaw,aregenerallyvalidandbindingonthepartiesandmustbecompliedwithuntilfinally revised or amended, unilaterally or preferably through negotiation, by competentauthority. TheCourt has upheld a companysmanagement prerogatives so long as they areexercisedingoodfaithfortheadvancementoftheemployersinterestandnotforthepurposeof defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid

agreements.[23]

For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, thesamemustberelatedtotheperformanceoftheemployeesdutiesandmustshowthathehas

becomeunfittocontinueworkingfortheemployer.[24]

In cases when an employer may dismiss an employee on the ground of willfuldisobedience,theremustbeconcurrenceofatleasttworequisites:(1)theemployeesassailedconductmusthavebeenwillfulorintentional,thewillfulnessbeingcharacterizedbyawrongfuland perverse attitude and (2) the order violatedmust have been reasonable, lawful, madeknown to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to

discharge.[25]

In the present case, the respondent was dismissed for dishonesty,more specifically forviolationofthecompanypolicy,and,moreparticularly,Sections10and12ofCompanyRulesand Regulation No. 00585, Fictitious sales transactions Falsification of companyrecords/data/documents/reports Conspiring or conniving with, or directing others to commitfictitious transactions and inefficiency in the performance of duties, negligence and blatantdisregardofordeviationfromestablishedcontrolandotherpoliciesandprocedures.

However,thepetitionerfailedtoadduceclearandconvincingevidencethattherespondenthadfictitioussalestransactions,orthathefalsifiedcompanyrecords/documents/reports,orthatheconnivedwithcustomersofthepetitionertopersuadethemtocommitfictitioustransactions.Itisundisputedthattherespondententeredintothesalestransactionssubjectofthecomplaintofthepetitionerforandinbehalfofthepetitioner.Whileitistruethattherespondentfailedtoindicatethereturnoftheemptybottlesmadebyacustomereitherinthepetitionercompanyscopy of the sales invoice or in his reports on his sales transactions and overcharged a

customerinonetransaction,thereisnoclearandconvincingevidencethattherespondentdidsointentionally,forawrongorcriminalpurpose.Thereisalsonoshowingthattherespondentintentionallydefiedthelawfulordersorregulationsofthepetitioner.Indeed,asdeclaredbytheCAinitsassailedresolution,thepetitionerdidnotsufferanymateriallossbytherespondentsactuations:

Attheoutset,itmaybestatedthatthepetitionerspositiveallegationthattheindividualpetitionerwasalsoanofficialofthepetitionerunion,beingthelattersshopstewardatrespondentcompanysBatangasSalesOffice,astherealmotiveforhistermination,hasnotbeenestablishedbysufficientprooftojustifyafindingintheirfavor.

AquickreviewofthesalientfactsshowsthatindividualpetitionerFlorentinoA.RamirezwashiredbyprivaterespondentcompanyonJuly1,1982,asdriverhelper,withthelatestbasicsalaryofP11,285.00asofFebruary1997andanaveragecommissionofP2,800.00amonth.Assuchdriverhelper,hisofficialdutiesandresponsibilities,amongothers,areasfollows:(a)asdriver,hechecksthetrucksoil,water,wheels,etc.(b)ashelper,heistaskedwithloadingandunloadingtrucksloadputtingbottlesinthecoolersanddisplayscompanyproductstoeachoutletorcustomersstore.Obviously,thisjobdidnotinvolvethesameamountoftrustandconfidenceasthatofasalesman.Officially,petitionerRamirezhadnootheralternateduties.

Itisnotrefutedthatindividualpetitionerdidnotpossesstherequiredbasictrainingtoactassalesman,andthatthisfactwasknowntotheprivaterespondentcompanyatthetimeitdesignatedhimasactingsalesmanduringthosedays,particularOctober02,12,and14,1996,whennoroutesalesmanwasavailable.Itisalsoselfevidentthatthejobdescriptionofthedriverhelperhardlyincludesanytaskwhichwouldsignificantlyoverlapwiththoseofthesalesmanaswouldaffordthedriverhelper,throughtimeperhaps,theexperiencetoadequatelydischargethedutiesofasalesman.Infact,asadmittedbytheprivaterespondent,becauseoftheamountoftrustandconfidenceinvolvedinthejobofasalesman,rigorousrequirementsandinternalcontrolproceduresareenforced,andunderstandably,aswellasstrictaccountability.

Fromthepartiesvariouspleadingsbothinthispetition,aswellasinthecasebelow,whatbecomesclearisthattheprivaterespondentsufferednodamagewhatsoeverfromtheactuationsoftheindividualpetitioner.Hisallegeddishonestywasnotproven.Whathecommittedwasmerelynoncompliancewith,oroversightof,certaininternalproceduresintheproperrecordingofhissalesandothertransactions,resultinginashortageinonetransaction,whichwasneverthelessoffsetbyanoverageinanother.Itcouldbeallowedthat,indeed,hewasinefficientandincompetentforthefunctionofasalesmanwhichhe

hadtotemporarilyperform.[26]

Inpointingoutthattheprivaterespondentsufferednomaterialloss,Wenotethatitwasverypossiblethatthediscrepanciesfoundinthedocumentsreflectingtheindividualpetitionerstransactionsasanactingsalesmancouldverywellhavebeenduetosimpleinadvertenceandthefactthatthecustomers,whoforsomereasonfailedtopaytheiraccountswithexactcashbutinsteadpartlywithemptybottles,latermisplacedtheircopyoftheinvoice.Thus,theircopycouldnotbecorrectedseasonably.Therecordingwasverylikelybungledfurtherbyindividualpetitionerslackoftrainingandfamiliaritywiththestrictrecordingprocedures.Weareinclinedtogivehimthisbenefitofthedoubt.

Thattheindividualpetitionerhasnotbeenspecificallytrainedassalesmanisundisputed.Itislikewiseuncontrovertedthatbeforeanemployeecouldqualifyasafullfledgesalesman,therespondentcompanyrequiresasaconditionsinequanonthathefirstundergobasicsalesmantrainingandseveralseminarstobeacquaintedwithhisspecificfunctions.Thisisunderstandable,becausethecompanysalesmannotonlymustfindcustomers,promoteandsellitsproducts,buthealsomustaccountforhissalesand

inventorytothelastcentavo,everyday,accordingtoitsinternalcontrolsandpolicies.Itisobviousthatthiswasnotsowiththeindividualpetitioner.Hewastaskedwithadutyinvolvingtrustandspecializedskillsforwhichhewasnevertrained.Hisallegedfailuretocomplystrictlywithalltheprocedures,ofwhichhewasunfamiliar,wastobeexpected.

YetRamirezwaspenalizedasafullfledgesalesman,notasadriverhelperwhowasforcedtoperformthefunctionsofactingsalesmanorperhapsriskbeingchargedwithinsubordination.Thenitwasnotjustanypenaltymetedouttohim,asifthereisonlyonepunishmentpossibleforhim:thesupremesanctionofdismissal.

Wecannotbutagreethattheextremepenaltyofdismissalwastooharshandmanifestlydisproportionatetotheinfractioncommitted,whichappearstohavebeenfullyexplained,and,infact,tobenotinexcusableunderthecircumstances.Therewasnodishonesty,nodemonstrationofsuchmoralperversenessaswouldhavejustifiedtheclaimedlossofconfidenceattendanttothejob.Thecompanymustbearashareoftheblameforentrustingameredriverhelperwithahighlyfiduciarytaskknowingthathedidnotpossesstherequiredskills.Atmost,Ramirezfailedtocomplywith,orevenviolated,certaincompanyrulesofinternalcontrolprocedures,buttosaythatitwasdeliberateisgratuitous.

Perhaps,individualpetitionershouldfirsthavebeengivenamerewarning,thenareprimandorevenasuspension,butcertainlynotoutrightdismissalfromemployment.Onemustkeepinmindthataworkersemploymentispropertyintheconstitutionalsense,andhecannotbedeprivedthereofwithoutdue

processandunlessitwascommensuratetohisactsanddegreeofmoraldepravity.[27]

InCharlesJosephU.Ramosv.TheHonorableCourtofAppealsandUnionBankof the

Philippines,[28]

theCourtheld that, inorder tovalidlydismissanemployeeon thegroundoflossoftrustandconfidenceunderArticle282oftheLaborCodeofthePhilippines,thefollowingguidelinesmustbefollowed:

1.Thelossofconfidencemustnotbesimulated

2.Itshouldnotbeusedasasubterfugeforcauseswhichareillegal,improperorunjustified

3.Itmaynotbearbitrarilyassertedinthefaceofoverwhelmingevidencetothecontrary

4.Itmustbegenuine,notamereafterthought,tojustifyearlieractiontakeninbadfaithand

5.Theemployeeinvolvedholdsapositionoftrustandconfidence.[29]

InSulpicioLines,Inc.v.Gulde,[30]

theCourtemphasizedthatlossoftrustandconfidenceas a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employeeconcerned holds a position of responsibility or trust and confidence. As such, he must beinvested with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody handling or care andprotectionof thepropertyandassetsof theemployer. Inorder to constitutea just cause fordismissal,theactcomplainedofmustbeworkrelated.Itmustbeshownthattheemployeeisunfit tocontinuetoworkfortheemployer.Further,wellsettledistherulethatfor lossoftrustandconfidencetobeavalidgroundfordismissalofanemployee, itmustbesubstantialandfounded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employees separation from

employment.[31]

Weagreethatroutesalesmenarelikelyindividualisticpersonnelwhoroamaroundsellingsoftdrinks,dealwithcustomersandareentrustedwith largeassetand fundsandpropertyofthe employer. There is a high degree of trust and confidence reposed on them, and when

confidence is breached, the employermay take proper disciplinary action on them.[32]

Theworkofasalesmanexposeshimtovoluminousfinancial transactions involvinghisemployersgoods.Thelifeofthesoftdrinkscompanydependsnotsomuchonthebottlingorproductionoftheproductsince this isprimarilydonebyautomaticmachinesandpersonnelwhoareeasilysupervisedbutuponmobileandfarrangingsalesmenwhogofromstoretostorealloverthecountryorregion.Salesmenarehighlyindividualisticpersonnelwhohavetobetrustedandleftessentially on their own.Ahighdegreeof confidence is reposedon thembecause theyare

entrustedwithfundsorpropertiesoftheiremployer.[33]

The designation of the respondent, who was employed as driverhelper, but temporarilyassignedasroutesalesmanforaperiodofthree(3)days,didnotautomaticallymakehimanemployeeonwhomthepetitionerreposedtrustandconfidence,forbreachofwhichheshallbemetedthepenaltyofdismissal.Theassumptionbytherespondent,foronlythreedays,ofsomeofthedutiesofaroutesalesmanonordersofthepetitioner,didnotautomaticallymakehimanemployee holding a position of trust and confidence. Despite his additional duties, therespondent remainedadriverhelperof thepetitioner.Thus, respondentcannotbedismissedpursuanttoArticle282oftheLaborCode.

TherulingsoftheCourt inCharlesJosephU.Ramosv.TheHonorableCourtofAppeals

andUnionBankofthePhilippines,[34]

citedbythepetitionerarenotonallfoursapplicableinthiscase.This issobecauseinRamos,priortothedismissedemployeesappointmentasanactingbranchmanager,hewasthebranchcashier, thepositionnext to thebranchmanager.The positions of branch cashier and branchmanager are positions endowed with trust andconfidence. Moreover, upon the appointment of Ramos as OfficerInCharge (OIC) branchmanager,anotherpersonwasappointedtoserveasOICbranchcashier.Thus,forthatperiodof time, Ramos ceased to be a branch cashier when he was appointed as OIC branchmanager.Inthiscase,however,therespondentcontinuedtobeadriver/helperwhenhewasdesignated as an acting salesman. Although barren of experience and training as routesalesman,therespondenthadnochoicebuttocomplywiththepetitionersordersandtriedhisbesttodothetaskassignedtohim.

The rulingof theCourt inPhilippineCommercial InternationalBank v. Jacinto,[35]

is notalsoapplicableinthepresentcase.Inthatcase,Jacintowasacustomerrelationsassistantandwas assigned to act as an alternate FX Teller when the FX Teller was not available. Bothpositions involved trustandconfidence.Moreover, theemployee(Jacinto)wasnotdismissedbutonlymetedthepenaltyofsuspension.

Initsassailedresolution,theCAruled:

Thatonce,backin1992,Ramirezhadborrowedsomeemptybottlesfromacustomerbutlaterreturnedthemthesamedayandwassuspendedforit,orthathewentAWOLseveraltimesin1996andthuswasmetedasuspensionof2days,aretheonlyblemishesinhisrecordofanysignificance.Toourmind,coupledwithhispresentpredicament,thesecouldnotjustifysucha

professedlossofconfidenceastoseverhimfromhisemploymentof14years.[36]

WeagreewiththeCA.AstheCourtruledinPepsiColaDistributorsofthePhilippines,Inc.

v.NLRC:[37]

Moreover,privaterespondentwasalreadypenalizedwithsuspensionsinsomeoftheinfractionsimputedtohiminthiscase,likesleepingwhileonrouterides,incompleteaccomplishmentofsalesreportandhisfailuretoachievesalescommitments.Hecannotagainbepenalizedforthosemisconduct.Theforegoingactscannotbeaddedtosupporttheimpositionoftheultimatepenaltyofdismissalwhichmustbebasedonclearandnotonambiguousandambivalentground.

Considering the factualbackdrop in thiscase,we findandsorule that forhis infractions,therespondentshouldbemetedasuspensionoftwo(2)months.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. TheResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedJanuary30,2001affirmingtheassailedresolutionofthe NLRC is SET ASIDE. TheDecision of the Court of Appeals datedOctober 25, 2000 isAFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the respondent is meted the penalty of Two (2)monthssuspension.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Tinga,andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

[1]PennedbyAssociateJusticeEliezerde losSantos,withAssociateJusticesEugenioS.LabitoriaandEloyR.

Bello,Jr.(retired),concurring.

[2]Rollo,p.87.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Id.at105.

[5]Records,p.1.

[6]Id.at34.

[7]Id.at35.

[8]Id.at110114.

[9]Id.at114.

[10]Id.at169175.

[11]196SCRA697(1991).

[12]CARollo,pp.1213.

[13]Id.at469.

[14]Id.at471.

[15]Id.at474.

[16]Id.at478.

[17]Id.at500.

[18]Id.at493494.

[19]Rollo,pp.1920.

[20]Phil.EmployServicesandResources,Inc.v.Paramio,427SCRA732(2004).

[21]VHManufacturing,Inc.v.NLRC,322SCRA417(2000).

[22]Id.at422.

[23]Aparente,Sr.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,331SCRA82(2000).

[24]Molatov.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,266SCRA42(1997).

[25]Ibid.

[26]Rollo,pp.261262.

[27]Id.at264266.

[28]G.R.No.145405,June29,2004.

[29]Ibid.

[30]377SCRA525(2002).

[31]Ibid.

[32]CocaColaBottlersPhilippines,Inc.v.NLRC,172SCRA751(1989).

[33]Id.at757.

[34]Supra,note28.

[35]Supra,note11.

[36]Rollo,p.266.

[37]272SCRA267(1997).