G.R. No. 172506 ; July 27, 2011
JERRY MAPILI, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC./NATIVIDAD NISCE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jerry Mapili was hired as a bus conductor by respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI) on April 7, 1993. On October 7, 2001, while on duty, he was caught by a company field inspector extending a free ride to a lady passenger, who was the wife of a co-employee driver. Upon the inspector’s order, a ticket was issued and the passenger paid the fare. This was petitioner’s third violation of the same company rule against extending free rides. He was preventively suspended, subjected to an administrative investigation where he was given a chance to explain, and subsequently terminated via a memorandum dated November 9, 2001. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing the infraction was trivial, done without malice based on an honest belief that immediate family members of employees were entitled to free rides, and that his two prior similar violations should not be considered as he had already been penalized for them. Respondents contended the dismissal was valid due to petitioner’s position of trust, his admission of the act, and his history of offenses including non-issuance and improper issuance of tickets.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in affirming the dismissal of petitioner, specifically regarding: 1) the proportionality of the penalty of dismissal for the infraction; 2) the consideration of alleged past infractions; and 3) the use of past infractions for which penalties had already been imposed as justification for dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court ruled that petitioner’s dismissal was for a just cause. His violation of company rules was intentional, willful, and serious. The act of not issuing a ticket to a passenger, thereby depriving the company of fare, constituted fraud or willful breach of trust, which is a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Court found that petitioner’s claim of an honest mistake was belied by the fact that he had committed the same violation twice before and had been warned and penalized for it; thus, he was fully aware of the rule. His propensity to commit repetitious infractions evinced wrongful intent, making him undeserving of the law’s compassion. The Court held that an employer has the right to impose the penalty of dismissal on an employee found to have committed an offense against the employer, especially when the employee holds a position of trust and has been repeatedly warned. Past infractions, though previously penalized, may be considered in determining the penalty for a subsequent offense, as they demonstrate the employee’s character and propensity to violate rules. The penalty of dismissal was commensurate to the offense, considering petitioner’s record of violations.