Labor Fulltext

7/24/2019 Labor Fulltext

1/7

THIRD DIVISION

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, Petitioner, versus BENJAMIN A. SILAYRO,

Reson!ent.

".R. No. #$%&%' (e)ru*r+ %, %--'

CHICO-NAZARIO,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, assailin!

the "e#ision,$if %support&ootnotes'$('$endif' dated ) &e*ruar+ , pro/ul!ated *+ the Court of

Appeals in CA-0.R. 12 No. )(3), reversin! the "e#ision$if %support&ootnotes'$'$endif'dated 5 6a+

of the National 7a*or Relations Co//ission 8N7RC9 in N7RC Case No. -))-

33. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed "e#ision, ad;ud!ed the dis/issal of respondent#essive and

unwarranted penalt+. The appellate #ourt deter/ined that the suspension of the respondent

for five /onths without salar+ as ;ust penalt+.

2etitioner is the division of =ohnson ? =ohnson 2hilippines In#. en!a!ed in the sale and

/anufa#ture of phar/a#euti#al produ#ts. In (3)3, petitioner e/plo+ed respondent as

Territor+@6edi#al Representative. "urin! his e/plo+/ent, respondent re#eived fro/

petitioner several awards and #itations for the +ears (33 to (335, su#h as Territor+

Representative Award, uota plainin!

that he failed to surrender his a##ounta*ilities *e#ause he thou!ht that this was tanta/ount

to an ad/ission that the #har!es a!ainst hi/ were true and, thus, #ould result in his

ter/ination fro/ the ;o*.$if %support&ootnotes'$(5'$endif'


2/7

An ad/inistrative investi!ation of the respondents #ase was held on "e#e/*er (33).

Respondent was a##o/panied *+ union representative 7+ndon 7i/. The parties dis#ussed

/atters #on#ernin! the dis#repan#+ in respondents report and petitioners audit on the

nu/*er of produ#t sa/ples in respondents #ustod+ in 1epte/*er (33). The+ were also

a*le to #larif+ a/on! the/selves respondents failure to return his a##ounta*ilities and, as

a #onseDuen#e, respondent pro/ised to surrender the sa/e. The+ further a!reed that

another ad/inistrative hearin! will *e set, *ut no further hearin!s were held. $if %support&ootnotes'

$()'$endif'

In line with his pro/ise to surrender his a##ounta*ilities, respondent wrote aletter, dated 3 "e#e/*er (33), asBin! his superiors where he should return his

a##ounta*ilities.$if %support&ootnotes'$(3'$endif' Gnion representative "o/ini# Re!oro also /ade

reDuests, on *ehalf of respondent, for instru#tions, to who/ petitioners "istri#t 1upervisor

Ra+/ond


3/7

and (4 O#to*er are here*+ SET ASIDE.

A##ordin!l+, =ud!/ent is here*+ rendered:"e#larin!

petitioners dis/issal to *e ille!alFReinstatin! petitioner

to the sa/e or eDuivalent position without loss of

seniorit+ ri!hts and other privile!esFOrderin! the

pa+/ent of *a#Bwa!es 8in#lusive of allowan#es and

other *enefits or their /onetar+ eDuivalent9, #o/puted

fro/ the ti/e #o/pensation was withheld up to the ti/e

of a#tual reinstate/entF 2rovided that, fro/ su#h

#o/puted a/ount of *a#Bwa!es, a dedu#tion of five 89/onths 8si#9 salar+ *e /ade to serve as penalt+F and if

reinstate/ent is no lon!er feasi*le, orderin! the pa+/ent

of separation pa+ #o/prisin! of one /onth salar+ per

+ear of servi#e #o/puted fro/ date of e/plo+/ent up to

finalit+ of this de#ision, in addition to the award of

*a#Bwa!es

7et the re#ords of this #ase *e re/anded to

the 7a*or Ariter a quofor the proper #o/putation of thefore!oin!.$if %support&ootnotes'$('$endif'

Hen#e, this 2etition, wherein the followin!

issues were raised:

EHTHR OR NOT TH COGRT O&A22A71 0RA7 RR" IN RR1IN0 TH

GNI&OR6 &ACTGA7 &IN"IN01 O& TH N7RC

AN" TH 7A


4/7

trial #ourt, or in this #ase of the Duasi-;udi#ial a!en#ies #on#erned, are #onfli#tin! or

#ontradi#tor+ with those of the Court of Appeals.$if %support&ootnotes'$'$endif'

In the ter/ination letter dated ) "e#e/*er (33), respondent was

dis/issed on the !round that he #o//itted the followin! offenses: 8(9

dishonest+ in a##o/plishin! the report on the nu/*er of produ#t sa/ples in his

possessionF and 89 his failure to return the #o/pan+ vehi#le and other

a##ounta*ilities in violation of 1e#tions 3..3 and 3..4 of the Code of Condu#t.

In addition to these offenses, petitioner tooB into a##ount that the petitioner

#o//itted the followin! infra#tions in the past: 8(9 !rantin! unauthoriedpre/iu/@free !oods in (334F 89 unauthoried pull-outs fro/ #usto/ers in (33F

89 #heatin! durin! the RO7 e>a/ in (33)F and 849 three infra#tions of dela+ed

pro#ess reports in (33).

Initiall+, the Court /ust deter/ine whether the respondent violated

the Code of Condu#t with his dishonest+ in a##o/plishin! his report on produ#t

sa/ples and@or failure to return the #o/pan+ vehi#le and other su#h

a##ounta*ilities. The re#ords of this #ase ne!ate a findin! of su#h #ulpa*ilit+ on

the part of the respondent.

2etitioner failed to present eviden#e that respondent was !uilt+ ofdishonest+ in a##o/plishin! the "CR, wherein he was supposed to indi#ate the

nu/*er of produ#t sa/ples in his possession for Au!ust and 1epte/*er (33).

2etitioner /erel+ relied on the fa#t that the nu/*er of produ#t sa/ples the

respondent reported was in#orre#t, and the nu/*er of produ#t sa/ples later

found in his possession e>#eeded that whi#h he reported. Respondent ad/itted

that when the produ#t sa/ples had arrived, he failed to #he#B if the nu/*er of

produ#t sa/ples indi#ated in the "CR #orresponded to the nu/*er a#tuall+

delivered and that he /ade /istaBes in postin! the produ#t sa/ples distri*uted

durin! the period in Duestion.

In ter/ination #ases, the *urden of proof rests with the e/plo+er to show that

the dis/issal is for ;ust and valid #ause. &ailure to do so would ne#essaril+ /ean that thedis/issal was not ;ustified and therefore was ille!al. $if %support&ootnotes'$'$endif'"ishonest+ is a

serious #har!e, whi#h the e/plo+er /ust adeDuatel+ prove, espe#iall+ when it is the *asis

for ter/ination.

In this #ase, petitioner had not *een a*le to identif+ an a#t of

dishonest+, /isappropriation, or an+ illi#it a#t, whi#h the respondent /a+ have

#o//itted in #onne#tion with the erroneousl+ reported produ#t sa/ples. Ehile

respondent was ad/ittedl+ ne!li!ent in fillin! out his Au!ust and 1epte/*er

(33) "CR, his errors alone are insuffi#ient eviden#e of a dishonest purpose.

1in#e fraud i/plies willfulness or wron!ful intent, the inno#ent non-dis#losure

of or inadvertent errors in de#larin! fa#ts *+ the e/plo+ee to the e/plo+er will

not #onstitute a ;ust #ause for the dis/issal of the e/plo+ee. $if %support&ootnotes'$5'$endif'

In addition, the su*seDuent a#ts of respondent *elie a desi!n to /isappropriate

produ#t sa/ples. 1o as to es#ape an+ lia*ilit+, respondent #ould have easil+ ;ust

su*/itted for audit onl+ the nu/*er of produ#t sa/ples whi#h he reported.

Instead, respondent *rou!ht all the produ#t sa/ples in his #ustod+ durin! the

audit and, afterwards, honestl+ ad/itted to his ne!li!en#e. Ne!li!en#e is defined

as the failure to e>er#ise the standard of #are that a reasona*l+ prudent person

would have e>er#ised in a si/ilar situation.$if %support&ootnotes'$)'$endif' To this Court,

respondent did not #o//it an+ willful violation, rather he /erel+ failed to

e>er#ise the standard #are reDuired of a territor+ representative to #arefull+ #ount

the nu/*er of produ#t sa/ples delivered to hi/ in Au!ust and 1epte/*er (33).

In the 6e/orandu/ dated Nove/*er (33), petitioner ordered

respondent to return the #o/pan+ vehi#le and all other a##ounta*ilities *+ %&

Nove/)er #00'. 2etitioner issued its first noti#e on %1 Nove/)er #00', even

*efore respondent was o*li!ated to return his a##ounta*ilities. Hen#e, respondent

#ould not +et have #o//itted an+ offense when petitioner issued the first noti#e.

Confused *+ petitioners ar*itrar+ a#tion, respondent did not return his

a##ounta*ilities, *ut i//ediatel+ e>plained in a letter dated Nove/*er (33)

his reasons for failin! to return his a##ounta*ilities on Nove/*er (33) as

previousl+ ordered *+ the petitioner.

"urin! the #o/pan+ hearin! held on "e#e/*er (33), respondent

offered to return his a##ounta*ilities in a##ordan#e with the instru#tions to *e

!iven *+ the petitioner. In a letter dated 3 "e#e/*er (33) addressed to the

petitioner, respondent reiterated his reDuest for instru#tions on the return of his

a##ounta*ilities. There is no showin! that petitioner replied to respondents letter.

The letter written *+ petitioners "istri#t 1upervisor Ra+/ond


5/7

!rounds for ter/ination, and 3ivin3 s*i! e/4o+ee re*son*)4e oortunit+ 5it6in

56i76 to e84*in 6is si!e. A hearin! or #onferen#e durin! whi#h the e/plo+ee #on#erned,

with the assistan#e of #ounsel if he so desires is !iven oortunit+ to reson! to t6e

76*r3e, resent 6is evi!en7e, or re)ut t6e evi!en7e resente! *3*inst 6i/ .A written

noti#e of ter/ination served on the e/plo+ee, indi#atin! that upon due #onsideration of all

the #ir#u/stan#es, !rounds have *een esta*lished to ;ustif+ his ter/ination. 8/phases

supplied.9

&ro/ the afore#ited provision, it is i/pli#it that these reDuire/ents afford the

e/plo+ee an opportunit+ to e>plain his side, respond to the #har!e, present his or her

eviden#e and re*ut the eviden#e presented a!ainst hi/ or her.

The superfi#ial #o/plian#e with two noti#es and a hearin! in this

#ase #annot *e #onsidered valid where these noti#es were issued and the hearin!

/ade *efore an offense was even #o//itted. The first noti#e, issued on 4

Nove/*er (33), was pre/ature sin#e respondent was o*li!ed to return his

a##ounta*ilities onl+ on Nove/*er (33). As respondents preventive

suspension *e!an on Nove/*er (33), he was still perfor/in! his duties as

territor+ representative the da+ *efore, whi#h reDuired the use of the #o/pan+

#ar and other #o/pan+ eDuip/ent. "urin! the ad/inistrative hearin! on

"e#e/*er (33), *oth parties #larified the #onfusion #aused *+ the petitioners

pre/ature noti#e and a!reed that respondent would surrender his a##ounta*ilities

as soon as the petitioner !ave its instru#tions. 1in#e petitioners ostensi*le#o/plian#e with the pro#edural reDuire/ents of noti#e and hearin! tooB pla#e

*efore an offense was even #o//itted, respondent was ro**ed of his ri!hts to

e>plain his side, to present his eviden#e and re*ut what was presented a!ainst

hi/, ri!hts ensured *+ the proper o*servan#e of pro#edural due pro#ess.

Of all the past offenses that were attri*uted to the respondent, he #ontests

havin! #o//itted the infra#tion involvin! the unauthoried pull-outs fro/ #usto/ers,

alle!edl+ /ade in (334. A!ain, the re#ords show that petitioner did not provide an+ proof

to support said #har!e. It /ust *e e/phasied at this point that the onus probandito prove

the lawfulness of the dis/issal rests with the e/plo+er, $if %support&ootnotes'$3'$endif'and in li!ht of

petitioners failure to dis#har!e the sa/e, the alle!ed offense #annot *e !iven an+ #reden#e

*+ this Court. As for the three re/ainin! violations, it is unDuestioned that respondent had#o//itted and had alread+ *een punished for the/.

Ehile a penalt+ /a+ no lon!er *e i/posed on offenses for whi#h

respondent has alread+ *een punished, these offenses, a/on! other offenses,

/a+ still *e used as ;ustifi#ation for an e/plo+ees dis/issal. Hen#e, this Court

/ust now taBe into #onsideration all the offenses that respondent #o//itted

durin! his e/plo+/ent and de#ide whether these infra#tions, taBen to!ether,

#onstitute a valid #ause for dis/issal.

Gndou*tedl+, respondent was ne!li!ent in reportin! the nu/*er of

produ#t sa/ples in his #ustod+ for Au!ust and 1epte/*er (33). He also#o//itted three other offenses in the past. &irst, he was found !uilt+ of and

penalied for !rantin! unauthoried free !oods in (334. 1e#ondl+, he in#urred

dela+s in su*/ittin! his pro#ess reports for Au!ust, 1epte/*er and O#to*er

(33), for whi#h #har!e he was punished with one-da+ suspension. 7astl+, he

#heated in an RO7 test in =ul+ (33) for whi#h he was punished with another

one-da+ suspension.

Respondents offense of !rantin! unauthoried free !oods was va!uel+ dis#ussed.

2etitioner did not offer an+ eviden#e in this #onne#tionF it was !iven #reden#e

onl+ *e#ause of respondents ad/ission of the sa/e. Ehat a#ts #onstituted this

offense and the #ir#u/stan#es surroundin! it were not e>plained. However, the

re#ords show that in the sa/e +ear it was #o//itted, in (334, petitioner still!ave respondent two awards: /e/*ership to the Eild


6/7

this Court finds this e>#use to *e ver+ fli/s+. The RO7 test #onsists of one pa!e

and two strai!htforward Duestions, whi#h #an *e answered *+ /ore or less ten

senten#es. Respondent #ould have spared the few /inutes it would taBe to write

the e>a/ination. If he had la#Bed the ti/e due to a fa/il+ e/er!en#+, a reDuest

for an e>tension would have *een the /ore reasona*le and honest alternative.

"espite the disapprovin! stan#e taBen *+ this Court a!ainst

dishonest+, there have *een instan#es when this Court found the ulti/ate penalt+

of dis/issal e>#essive, even for #ases whi#h *ear the sti!/a of de#eit.

In Philippine Long Distance elephone Company v. National Labor

Relations Commission,$if %support&ootnotes'$4'$endif' an e/plo+ee intervened in the

ano/alous #onne#tion of four telephone lines. It was, liBewise, esta*lished in

!anila "lectric Company v. National Labor Relations Commission,$if %support&ootnotes'

$44'$endif'that the e/plo+ee was involved in the ille!al installation of a power line.

In *oth #ases, the violations were #learl+ pre;udi#ial to the e#ono/i# a#tivit+ of

his e/plo+er. &inall+, inNational Labor Relations Commission v. #algarino,$if %

support&ootnotes'$4'$endif'a s#hool tea#her ta/pered with the !rades of her students, an

a#t whi#h was pre;udi#ial to the s#hools reputation. Nota*l+, the Court stopped

short of dis/issin! these e/plo+ees for offenses /ore serious than the present

#ase.

In this #ase, the RO7 test is a taBe-ho/e e>a/ination intended to

#he#B a territor+ representatives understandin! of infor/ation alread+ #ontained

in their 1ales Career 6anual, wherein the e>a/inees are even instru#ted to refer

to their /anuals. The i/proper taBin! of this test, while it puts into Duestion the

e>a/inees /oral #hara#ter, does not result in an+ potential loss of propert+ or

da/a!e to the reputation of the e/plo+er. Nor does respondents previous

perfor/an#e show la#B of Bnowled!e reDuired in his sales #areer. Additionall+,

the dishonest+ pra#ti#ed *+ the e/plo+ee did not involve #o/pan+ propert+ that

was pla#ed in his #ustod+. &urther/ore, the !ravit+ of this offense is

su*stantiall+ di/inished *+ the fa#t that petitioner itself had thou!ht it

uni/portant enou!h to /erit onl+ a one-da+ suspension. The respondents ten+ears of #o//enda*le perfor/an#e #annot *e #an#elled out *+ a sin!le /istaBe

/ade durin! a diffi#ult period of his life, a /istaBe that did not pose a potential

dan!er to his e/plo+er.

The spe#ial #ir#u/stan#es of this #ase -- respondents fa/il+ #rises,

the duration of his e/plo+/ent, and the Dualit+ of his worB durin! the previous

+ears -- /ust ne#essaril+ influen#e the penalt+ to *e /eted out to the respondent.

It would *e a #ruel disre!ard of the #onstitutional !uarantee of se#urit+ of tenure

to i/pose the penalt+ of dis/issal, without !ivin! due #onsideration to the ill

fortune that /a+ *efall a nor/all+ e>#ellent e/plo+ee.

In National Labor Relations Commission v. #algarino,$if %support&ootnotes'$4'$endif'spe#ial #onsideration was !iven to the fa#t that the respondent therein had

*een in the e/plo+ of the petitioners therein for ( +ears and that she was a

re#ipient of nu/erous a#ade/i# e>#ellen#e awards and re#o!nied *+ her

students and so/e of her peers in the profession as a #o/petent tea#her. The

Court, in other #ases, has repeatedl+ ruled that in deter/inin! the penalt+ to *e

i/posed on an errin! e/plo+ee, his or her len!th of servi#e /ust *e taBen into

a##ount.$if %support&ootnotes'$45'$endif' In $re% !aster &nternational' &nc.' v. National

(ederation o) Labor *nions,$if %support&ootnotes'$4)'$endif' the e/otional, ps+#holo!i#al,

spiritual and ph+si#al stress and strain under!one *+ the e/plo+ee durin! a

fa/il+ #risis were re!arded as spe#ial #ir#u/stan#es whi#h pre#luded his

dis/issal fro/ servi#e, despite his prolon!ed a*sen#e fro/ worB. The Courte>plains the #ir#u/spe#tion it e>er#ises when fa#ed with the i/position of the

e>tre/el+ severe penalt+ of dis/issal thus:

The e/plo+ers prero!ative to dis#ipline its e/plo+ee /ust *e e>er#ised without a*use of

dis#retion. Its i/ple/entation should *e te/pered with #o/passion and understandin!.

Ehile an e/plo+er has the inherent ri!ht to dis#ipline its e/plo+ees, we have alwa+s held

that this ri!ht /ust alwa+s *e e>er#ised hu/anel+, and the penalt+ it /ust i/pose should

*e #o//ensurate to the offense involved and to the de!ree of its infra#tion. The e/plo+er

should *ear in /ind that, in the e>er#ise of su#h ri!ht, what is at staBe is not the

e/plo+ees position *ut her livelihood as well. The law re!ards the worBers with

#o/passion. ven where a worBer has #o//itted an infra#tion, a penalt+ less punitive

/a+ suffi#e, whatever /issteps /a+ *e #o//itted *+ la*or ou!ht not to *e visited with a#onseDuen#e so severe. This is not onl+ the laws #on#ern for worBin!/an. There is, in

addition, his or her fa/il+ to #onsider. Gne/plo+/ent *rin!s untold hardships and

sorrows upon those dependent on the wa!e-earner.$if %support&ootnotes'$43'$endif'

Respondents violations of petitioners Code of Condu#t, even if taBen

as a whole, would not fall under the ;ust #auses of

ter/ination provided under Arti#le ) of the 7a*or

Code.$if %support&ootnotes'$'$endif'The+ are /ere *lunders, whi#h

/a+ *e #orre#ted. 2etitioner failed to point out even a

potential dan!er that respondent would /isappropriate or

i/properl+ dispose of #o/pan+ propert+ pla#ed in his

#ustod+. It had not shown that durin! his e/plo+/ent,

respondent tooB a willfull+ defiant attitude a!ainst it. Italso failed to show a pattern of ne!li!en#e whi#h would

indi#ate that respondent is in#apa*le of perfor/in! his

responsi*ilities. At an+ other ti/e durin! his

e/plo+/ent, respondent had shown hi/self a

#o//enda*le worBer.

Nonetheless, the infra#tions #o//itted *+ the respondent, while

disproportionate to a penalt+ of dis/issal, will not *e overlooBed. Thesuspension of five /onths without pa+, i/posed *+ the Court of Appeals, would


7/7

serve as a suffi#ient and ;ust punish/ent for his violations of the #o/pan+s Code

of Condu#t.

IN VIE O( THE (ORE"OIN", the instant 2etition is DISMISSEDand the assailed

"e#ision of the Court of Appeals in CA-0.R. 12 No. )(3), pro/ul!ated on ) &e*ruar+

, is A((IRMED. Costs a!ainst the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Documents

Labor Fulltext