G.R. No. 166550 September 22, 2005
Robert C. Casol and NAGSAMA-PUREFOODS-PULO, Petitioners, vs. Purefoods Corporation, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Robert Casol, a deliveryman for respondent Purefoods Corporation, was dismissed for allegedly causing damage to a company vehicle through unauthorized use. After completing deliveries on August 29, 1992, Casol instructed the designated driver to leave the van with him. He later reported the vehicle had broken down. Inspection revealed damage costing ₱26,946.42 to repair. After investigation, Casol was found guilty under company rules of unauthorized use resulting in damage exceeding ₱25,000, warranting dismissal. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled the dismissal illegal, finding the company failed to prove Casol’s liability for the damage.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Arbiter, finding the unauthorized use and the resulting damage exceeding ₱25,000 justified dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the findings conflicted with the evidence and deprived Casol of his constitutional right to security of tenure.

ISSUE

Was Casol illegally dismissed?

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was illegal, but the Supreme Court modified the awarded monetary benefits. While the Court affirmed the factual findings of the NLRC and CA that Casol committed unauthorized use of the vehicle, it held that the penalty of dismissal was not justified under the company’s own rules. The company rule prescribed outright dismissal only if the damage exceeded ₱25,000. The Court meticulously reviewed the repair expenses and found that the cost of parts essential to repair the actual damage caused by the incident totaled only ₱24,744.70. Even with tax, the essential cost was ₱27,219.17. However, the Court excluded non-essential parts (like spark plugs and a clutch disc) meant to restore the van to “A-1 optimum condition,” which were not strictly necessary to rectify the damage from the unauthorized use. The true cost directly attributable to Casol’s infraction was thus below the ₱25,000 threshold.
Therefore, under the company’s graduated penalties, the correct penalty for a first offense causing damage over ₱10,000 but not more than ₱25,000 was a six-day suspension, not dismissal. The dismissal was therefore illegal. However, as a measure of equity, the Court ordered that the monetary equivalent of the six-day suspension and the actual cost of repair (₱24,976.92) be deducted from the separation pay awarded to Casol, which was computed until the closure of his division in 1997.