GR 226089; (March, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 226089, March 04, 2020
Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc., (formerly known as Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.), Petitioner, vs. Jesse L. Alpuerto, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Jesse L. Alpuerto worked for petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (now Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc.) as a Finance Clerk for 11 years, assigned at the warehouse in San Fernando, Pampanga. His duties included physical checking, encoding, and recording of all assets moving in and out of the gates to ensure accuracy and control. On March 12, 2012, while on leave, respondent arrived at the warehouse with his family and took nine cases of 237 ml. Coke Zero products, replacing them with empty bottles. He claimed Rodel Padua, the site Operations Manager of petitioner’s independent contractor The Redsystems Company, Inc. (TRCI), told him it was alright to drink the soft drinks, which he alleged were classified as bad orders (BOs) already expired. The incident was recorded in the guard’s logbook. Petitioner issued a Notice to Explain charging respondent with theft or unauthorized taking of property under its disciplinary rules. Respondent admitted taking the products but explained they were expired BOs subject to condemnation and that he believed it was permissible as others also consumed them. After a hearing, petitioner dismissed respondent for theft, serious misconduct, and loss of trust and confidence. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, upholding the dismissal. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, finding the dismissal illegal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding respondent’s dismissal illegal.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the NLRC Decision which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that respondent’s dismissal was for a just cause.
The Court found that respondent committed serious misconduct and an act of dishonesty constituting willful breach of trust. As a Finance Clerk tasked with safeguarding company assets, his unauthorized taking of company property, regardless of its expired status, violated petitioner’s trust. The act was work-related and of such grave character as to render him unfit for his position. The claim of good faith or permission from TRCI personnel was unavailing, as respondent failed to secure proper authorization from his own superiors and follow established company procedures for handling BOs. His long tenure of 11 years aggravated the offense, as he was expected to be more cognizant of company rules. The dismissal was procedurally valid, with respondent given ample opportunity to explain his side. Consequently, respondent was not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, or any other relief.