G.R. No. 248108. July 14, 2021.
PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANGELO T. PACANA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Angelo T. Pacana was employed by petitioner Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. as a Key Accounts Manager (KAM), responsible for booking orders and collecting payments. He was placed under preventive suspension and later dismissed via a Memorandum dated October 19, 2015, based on alleged irregularities involving the account of Mega Integrated Agro Livestock Farm Corp. (Mega Farm). The charges included: (1) fictitious sales transactions worth P204,522.00 where products were allegedly not delivered to Mega Farm; (2) applying Mega Farm’s payments to different invoices using a “First In-First Out” (FIFO) method, deviating from standard procedure, for amounts totaling P118,561.32 and P143,284.86; and (3) falsifying check vouchers attached to official receipts. Pacana claimed the dismissal was without just cause and due process, alleging the charges were fabricated due to a prior conflict with management over a company vehicle accident. He argued the preventive suspension was indefinite and constructive dismissal, and that the FIFO method was a known practice necessitated by an improper turnover from a previous employee. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal, a ruling reversed by the NLRC but later reinstated by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Angelo T. Pacana was illegally dismissed.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court ruled that Pacana was validly dismissed for just cause and with due process. The Court found that Pacana, a managerial employee, committed acts constituting breach of trust and confidence. He admitted during the administrative investigation to: (1) applying the FIFO method despite knowing it was against company procedure; (2) being unable to prove the delivery of products for the P204,522.00 transactions; and (3) falsifying the check voucher numbers on the duplicate copies of official receipts to make them appear as payment for other invoices. These acts of dishonesty and fraud, involving substantial company funds, justified his dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence. The Court also held that due process was observed, as Pacana was given a notice of charge, an opportunity to explain (which he waived by not submitting a written answer), and a hearing where he participated and admitted to the acts. The preventive suspension was justified as the charges involved serious dishonesty. The decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals were reversed, and the NLRC’s ruling upholding the validity of the dismissal was reinstated.