Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC

8/18/2019 Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaTHIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 101900 June 23, 1992

PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO., ANTHONY SIAN n! "IRGILIOCASTILLO, petitioners,

vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, #ou$%& '()(*(on, Ce+u C(%

OSCAR T. ENCABO, n! HON. JESSELITO B. LATOJA (n &(* /(% * Ee.L+o$ A$+(%e$ o Re(on A$+(%$%(on B$. "III, To+n C(%,respondents.

GUTIERRE4, JR., J.:

The instant petition sees to annul the !pril "#, "$$" decision of the National %abor Relations &o''ission (N%R&) and its Resolution dated !u*ust "+, "$$" affir'in*the decision of -ecutive %abor !rbiter esselito /. %ato0a in &ase No. #1233+144 entitled 5Oscar T. ncabo v. Pepsi1&ola /ottlin* &o., et al.5 pro'ul*ated onNove'ber 36, "$$2. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follo7s8

--- --- ---

9HR:OR, 0ud*'ent is hereb; rendered ORDRIN< respondent PPSI1&O%!DISTRI/=TORS IN TH PHI%IPPINS, Mr. Vir*ilio S. &astillo and Mr. !.&. Sian, toreinstate co'plainant, Ns fees ("2A) co'puted as follo7s8

"$44 B Ma; 3#, "$44 to Dece'ber "$446 'onths and 6 da;s B PC$,3+2.4C(P#,+3#.22 - 6 'os 6 da;s)"$4$ B anuar; to Dece'ber "$4$(P#,+3#.22 - "3 'os.) B E#,"22.22"$$2 B anuar; to Nove'ber "$$2(P#,+3#.22 - "2 'os.) B #+,3#2.22"2A !ttorne;>s :ees B "#,4#$.24FFFFF

T O T ! % ................................ P"6+,++$.22

(Rollo, p. 4#)

The circu'stances 7hich led to the private respondent>s dis'issalare accuratel; recounted b; the Office of the Solicitor1


2/5

On Ma; C2, "$44, private respondent filed a co'plaint for ille*al dis'issal and unfair labor practice a*ainst petitioners before the National %abor Relations &o''ission,Re*ional Office No. 4, Tacloban ⁢ (!nne- 5&5, Petition).

In his Position Paper dated ul; 3#, "$44, private respondent stated that hisdis'issal fro' the co'pan; 7as ille*al. He clai'ed that he 7as denied due processbecause he 7as not 5for'all; and priorl;5 char*ed (p. +, !nne- 55, Petition).

On the other hand, petitioners, in their Position Paper also dated ul; 3#, "$44,alle*ed that private respondent 7as ter'inated fro' e'plo;'ent for8 (a) ne*li*encein failin* to install preventive 'easures in 'aintenance thus resultin* in 'achinebreado7n and line stoppa*es@ and (b) ne*li*ent repair of &M163 Soaer Machineb; allo7in* outside contractors to repair the sa'e 7ithout his closesupervision (p. ", !nne- 5D5, Petition). (Rollo, pp. "+C1"+E)

:ro' the decision of the %abor !rbiter rulin* in favor of the private respondent,the petitioners appealed to the N%R& 7hich dis'issed the appeal on !pril "#, "$$".

Mean7hile, Pepsi1&ola Products Philippines, Inc. (P&PPI) filed a 'anifestation 7iththe N%R& statin* that it received a 7rit of e-ecution dated :ebruar; "4, "$$",addressed to Pepsi1&ola /ottlin* &o. (P/&) and orderin* Pepsi1&ola Distributors of the Philippines (P&D) to reinstate Oscar T. ncabo. P&PPI further stated that it 7asreturnin* the 7rit unsatisfied since it is a corporation separate and distinctfro' P/& or P&D, 'ain* it an inappropriate part; to 7hich the 7rit of e-ecutionshould be served.

In the 'otion for reconsideration filed 7ith the N%R&, the petitioners alle*ed thatreinstate'ent is no lon*er possible since the petitioner co'pan; closed do7n itsbusiness on ul; 3+, "$4$ and the ne7 franchise holder, Pepsi1&ola ProductsPhilippines (P&PPI) is a ne7 entit;.

On !u*ust "+, "$$", the N%R& issued a resolution den;in* the 'otion for reconsideration on the *round that the cessation of the business 7as never raised inthe arbitration level and can not no7 be entertained on appeal. Thus, the petitioner co'pan; and its successor1in1interest P&PPI 7ere held liable for the reinstate'entof the private respondent.

&onseGuentl;, the petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari 7ith a pra;er for the issuance of a 7rit of preli'inar; in0unction predicated on the follo7in* *rounds8

I

P=/%I& RSPONDNTS !&TD IN II

P=/%I& RSPONDNTS &OMMITTD


3/5

9e are not convinced of respondent>s postulations Their assertions leave 'oreunans7ered Guestions rather than facts. 9hat does5a fe7 'onths before his ter'ination5 'ean. &o'plainant 7asdis'issed on Ma; "$44. 9ould it be t7o, three or four 'onths prior, 7hich 7ould beas far bac, sa;, anuar; of "$44. Or cold it be Nove'ber or Dece'ber of "$46. Respondent>s alle*ation is va*ue, have (sic) not si*nified e-actl;@ 7hen did

co'plainant fail to install preventive 'easure8 and for ho7 'an; ti'es had heo'itted to do it, if respondent did in fact call his attention to it. Not a sin*le 7ritten'e'orandu' 7as ever issued b; respondents purportin* to sho7 that he had failedto installpreventive 'easures, or for that 'atter criticiin* hi' for his o'issions andfailure to perfor' his functions. If 7e shall refer to ;ear "$46, that 7ould be too far bac as a 5fe7 'onths5 7ould connote. /esides, in that ;ear that particular 'achine7as still functionin* and doin* its 0ob. If it 7as, then theMaintenance Mana*er, n*r. ncabo 'ust have been doin* Guite a 0ob in coa-in*and 'aintainin* an ancient 'achine (Model "$EE) to do its 7or. This 7ould alsoi'pl; that co'plainant 7as in fact installin* preventive 'easures to insure thefunctionin* and *ood condition of the 'achine.

Kno7in* full; 7ell the unstable and dilapidated condition of that bottle cleaner, /arr;

9eh'iller. Model E+


4/5

9here the char*es a*ainst the e'plo;ee are not substantiated, there is no other alternative but to hold that the so called 5loss of confidence5 is 7ithout basis, %oss of confidence has never been intended to afford anoccasion for abuse because of its sub0ective nature to dis'iss e'plo;ees in contravention of the 5protection tolabor5 clause of the &onstitution. Atlas Consolidated Mining and evelop!ent Corporation v. NLRC . "E6 S&R! 6#4. (Rollo, pp. 6#142)

9ell1settled is the rule that findin*s of facts of Guasi10udicial a*encies 7hichhave acGuired e-pertise because their 0urisdiction is confined to specific 'atters areaccorded not onl; respect b; this court but at ti'es even finalit; if such findin*s aresupported b; evidence.(&hua v. N%R&, "43 S&R! C#C "$$2J). The &ourt does notfind an; co*ent reason to di*ress fro' the settled rule in this case. There issubstantial evidence to support the decision.

!part fro' the %abor !rbiters findin* that there is no sufficient basis for thepetitioners to 0ustif; private respondent>s dis'issal on the *round of loss of trust andconfidence, it appears that the dis'issal of the private respondent 7as 'erel; anafterthou*ht to cover up 'ana*e'ent>s e'barass'ent. The private respondent 7asb;1passed and i*nored in the tas of rehabilitatin* the soaer 'achine and he is

no7 bein* punished for the 'istae of 'ana*e'ent and the failure of its hiredcontractor and its favored supervisor.

There is no evidence to sho7 that the private respondent 7as re'iss in his duties.

The loss of trust and confidence 'ust rest on an actual breach of dut; co''itted b;the e'plo;ee and not on the e'plo;er>s caprices. !s held in "eneral #an$ and Trust Co.% v. CA "C# S&R! #E$ "$4#J8

. . . %oss of confidence should not be si'ulated. It should not be used as asubterfu*e for causes 7hich are i'proper, ille*al or un0ustified. %oss of confidence'a; not be arbitraril; asserted in the face of over7hel'in* evidence to the contrar;.

It 'ust be *enuine, not a 'ere afterthou*ht to 0ustif; earlier action taen in bad faith.

There is also no sho7in* that the reGuire'ents of due process 7ere adeGuatel; 'etb; the petitioners.

The la7 reGuires that the e'plo;er 'ust furnish the 7orer sou*ht to be dis'issed7ith t7o (3) 7ritten notices before ter'ination of e'plo;'ent can be le*all; effected8(") notice 7hich apprises the e'plo;ee of the particular acts or o'issions for 7hichhis dis'issal is sou*ht@ and (3) the subseGuent notice 7hich infor's the e'plo;eeof the e'plo;er>s decision to dis'iss hi'. (See. "C, /P "C2@ Sec. 31E Rule IV,/oo V, Rules and Re*ulations I'ple'entin* the %abor &ode as a'ended). :ailure

to co'pl; 7ith the reGuire'ents taints the dis'issal 7ith ille*alit;. This procedure is'andator;@ in the absence of 7hich, an; 0ud*'ent reached b; 'ana*e'ent is voidand ine-istent (Tin*son, r. v. N%R&, "4# S&R! +$4 "$$2J@ National Service &orp.v. N%R&, "E4 S&R! "33 "$44J@ Ruff; v N%R&, "43 S&R! CE# "$$2J).

In the instant case, the petitioners failed to furnish the private respondent 7ith thefirst of the reGuired t7o (3) notices 7hich could have apprised hi' of the petitioners>intention to dis'iss hi'. The petitioners contend that durin* the conference held7ith the co'pan;>s personnel 'ana*er on March "6, "$44, the private respondent7as verball; apprised of the char*es a*ainst hi' specificall; his poor 7orperfor'ance. Due process 7as alle*edl; accorded hi' since he 7as *iven theopportunit; to be heard 7ith the assistance of counsel. Itis clai'ed that there 7as substantial co'pliance 7ith the reGuire'ents of notice and

hearin*.

The petitioners> contention is untenable. The la7 is clear on the 'atter. Theconsultations or conferences are not a substitute for the actual observance of noticeand hearin*. In fact, 7hen private respondent>s la7;er called up DanaGuel b; phoneto inGuire cate*oricall; if he 5had been or 7as about to be dis'issed5 DanaGuele'phaticall; ans7ered 5No5. Then a fe7 da;s later or on Ma; 3#, "$44, the privaterespondent 7as handed his ter'ination letter. The e'plo;er>s action 7as drastic.=nder the circu'stances, it cannot be stated that the private respondent 7as *iventhe opportunit; to prepare for his defense.

9e, therefore, find no *rave abuse of discretion co''itted b; the publicrespondents in declarin* Oscar T. ncabo>s dis'issal fro' e'plo;'ent as ille*al.

9ith respect to the third issue, P&PPI clai's that the public respondent co''itted*rave abuse of discretion in holdin* it liable for the reinstate'ent of the privaterespondent considerin* that P&PPI is an entirel; separate and distinct entit; fro'the P&D.

On the *round of serious business losses, P&D alle*ed that it ceased to operate onul; 3+, "$4$ and P&PPI, a co'pan; separate and distinct fro' P&D acGuired thefranchise to sell the Pepsi1&ola products.

Pepsi1&ola Distributors of the Philippines 'a; have ceased business operations andPepsi1&ola Products Philippines Inc. 'a; be a ne7 co'pan; but it does not

necessaril; follo7 that no one 'a; no7 be held liable for ille*al acts co''itted b;


5/5

the earlier fir'. The co'plaint 7as filed 7hen P&D 7as still in e-istence Pepsi1&olanever stopped doin* business in the Philippines. The sa'e soft drins products soldin "$44 7hen the co'plaint 7as init iated continue to be soldno7. The sale ofproducts, purchases of 'aterials, pa;'ent of obli*ations, and other business acts did not stop at the ti'e P&D bo7ed out and P&PPI ca'e intobein*. There is no evidence presented sho7in* that P&PPI, as the ne7 entit; or

purchasin* co'pan; is free fro' an; liabilities incurred b; the for'er corporation.

In fact, 7e a*ree 7ith the public respondent>s observation that in the suret; bond(Rollo, p. 4E) put up b; the petitioners as appeal bond, both P&D and P&PPIbound the'selves to ans7er the 'onetar; a7ards of the private respondent in caseof an adverse decision of the appeal, 7hich clearl; i'plies that the P&PPI as aresult of the transfer of the franchise bound itself to ans7er for the liabilit; of P&D toits e'plo;ees.

Moreover, the liabilit; of petitioners !.&. Sianand Vir*ilio &astillo as Plant s financiallosses. &astillo>s affidavit is not onl; self1servin* but baseless. 9hile a 'ana*er>sri*ht to fire an e'plo;ee is reco*nied as an inherent part of the position such ri*ht 'ust bee-ercised 7ith ut'ost prudence and 7ith hu'aneconsideration. (Sibal v. Notre Da'e of s

order for reinstate'ent should follo7 as a 'atter of ri*ht. (s fees in the a'ountof P"2,222.22 7ith costs a*ainst the petitioners.The 7rit of e-ecution dated :ebruar; "4, "$$" and thealias 7ritof e-ecution dated Nove'ber 4, "$$" are hereb; N=%%I:IDand ST !SID. The te'porar;restrainin* order issued on Nove'ber 3#, "$$" is 'ade per'anent. This 0ud*'entis i''ediatel; e-ecutor;.

SO ORDRD.

Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC

Documents

Transcript of Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC