G.R. No. 165586 ; June 15, 2005
CORNELIO C. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., MANUEL A. REMULLA, JR., ROMEO A. LARA and/or RENE P. HORRILLENO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cornelio C. Cruz had been working as a driver/helper, and at times as Acting Salesman, for respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (CCBPI) since June 1983. On July 25, 1998, while assigned as acting salesman, he loaded his truck with company products and, after initial gate inspection, drove back into the plant on the pretext of refueling. While refueling, he directed his helper, Pablito Aguila, to load an additional thirty (30) cases of assorted canned soft drinks as “plus load” without securing the required Temporary Gate Pass (TGP) or Load Order Gate Pass (LOGP). Despite Aguila’s reminder about the necessary documents, petitioner stated “Ayos na.” Upon his second exit, petitioner did not stop for mandatory inspection, even when flagged down by security guards, and again shouted “Ayos na.” A security guard, Miguel Legaspi, noticed the unlisted cases, pursued the truck, and confirmed petitioner’s lack of proper documentation. Petitioner was directed to return to the plant. Following a written report and an investigation, respondent company terminated petitioner’s services on August 19, 1998, for violating company disciplinary rules. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the termination valid. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, finding the penalty of dismissal excessive and ordering reinstatement with backwages, minus a suspension period. The Court of Appeals further modified the NLRC decision, deleting the reinstatement order but awarding backwages from the date of dismissal until the finality of its decision, ruling that while there was valid cause for termination, the company failed to satisfy procedural due process requirements. Petitioner assailed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in modifying the NLRC decision by deleting the reinstatement aspect and finding the dismissal valid, albeit without observance of procedural due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the unanimous factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals that petitioner was guilty of dishonest acts, constituting serious misconduct and fraud, which are valid grounds for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Court emphasized that findings of fact by quasi-judicial bodies, when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive. Petitioner’s long tenure of almost fifteen years increased his responsibility to know and comply with company rules, making his claim of merely forgetting to secure documents unconvincing. His actions, including instructing the loading without documents, avoiding inspection, and his helper’s testimony, indicated a lack of good faith. The Court agreed that the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the offense of dishonesty involving company property. However, it concurred with the Court of Appeals that respondent company failed to comply with procedural due process by not specifying the charges with particularity in the notices to petitioner. Consequently, while the dismissal was for a just cause, the procedural defect warranted the payment of backwages from the date of dismissal (August 19, 1998) until the finality of the decision, but not reinstatement. The award of backwages serves as indemnity for the violation of petitioner’s right to procedural due process.