G.R. No. 224729 & G.R. No. 225049, February 08, 2021
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. APOLINAR A. ARGENTERA, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 225049] APOLINAR A. ARGENTERA, PETITIONER, VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY/MANNY V. PANGILINAN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Apolinar A. Argentera, an acting foreman for Manila Electric Company (Meralco), was a member of Crew T-2319 assigned to maintain substations. On August 6, 22, and 23, 2012, Argentera and his crew went to the Forbes Park substation. Security guards on duty noted that after each visit, disconnect switch blades were missing, and these items were not declared in the required Substation Action Forms. The guards were prevented from approaching the work area. The missing items were discovered during an inventory in October 2012. After an investigation, Meralco dismissed Argentera on February 18, 2014, for violations of its Code of Conduct, including theft of company property, willful disobedience, and acts prejudicial to the company’s interest, constituting serious misconduct under the Labor Code. Argentera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and claimed various monetary benefits. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission upheld the validity of his dismissal but awarded him a P70,000 lump sum under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Court of Appeals affirmed the legality of the dismissal but modified the award, granting Argentera all monetary benefits due under the law or the CBA as of his termination date, February 19, 2014. Both parties filed Petitions for Review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Argentera’s dismissal was valid. A corollary issue is whether he is entitled to the monetary benefits he claimed despite his dismissal for cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision with modification. The Court upheld Argentera’s dismissal as valid. It found substantial evidence, including the consistent testimonies of security guards and a co-employee’s affidavit detailing a modus operandi, that proved Argentera participated in the unauthorized removal and theft of company property. This constituted serious misconduct and willful disobedience, which are just causes for termination under Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code. The procedural due process requirements of notice and hearing were satisfied.
Regarding monetary benefits, the Court ruled that benefits earned or accrued prior to a valid dismissal are not automatically forfeited unless there is an express provision for forfeiture in a company policy, contract, or collective bargaining agreement. The Court awarded Argentera the following benefits computed as of February 19, 2014: 1) the P70,000 lump sum under the CBA; 2) the P20,000 signing bonus under the CBA; 3) his proportionate 13th-month pay; 4) his proportionate Christmas bonus for 2012 and the full bonus for 2013 (as it had already accrued); 5) the monetized value of his accrued sick and vacation leave credits; 6) the 2012 anniversary bonus; 7) the 2012 and 2013 mid-year bonuses; and 8) his Performance Incentive Plan benefit for 2012. The Court denied the claim for the Longevity Bonus as it was not due at the time of his termination. All awarded amounts shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.