GR 69073; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-69073 June 9, 1992
ALFREDO BOTULAN, JR., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY — Muntinglupa Branch, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfredo Botulan, Jr., a regular salesman of respondent Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company since 1958, was dismissed for allegedly failing to remit cash collections amounting to P20,842.50 and for making a fictitious delivery to another dealer, Ester Guinto. The incident involved a dealer, Bienvenido Liwag, who received Pepsi products from a jobber and, due to full storage, had them delivered to Botulan. Botulan received the products and later entered an agreement with Liwag to pull out and sell them. Botulan remitted P4,743.65 directly to Pepsi. Liwag later demanded payment from Botulan for the remaining balance because Pepsi was demanding payment from him. Botulan paid Liwag P17,000.00, for which Liwag issued a certification. Pepsi charged Botulan with failure to remit collections and dismissed him. The Labor Arbiter found the complaint meritorious and ordered reinstatement with full backwages. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding that Botulan violated company rules by not turning over all collections to Pepsi and by making a fictitious delivery to Guinto.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of petitioner Alfredo Botulan, Jr. was for a just cause.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the NLRC decision, and ordered the reinstatement of Botulan with payment of three years’ backwages. The Court held that the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just cause. Respondent Pepsi-Cola failed to present substantial evidence to prove its allegations. The documentary evidence presented by Botulan, including Liwag’s certification of payment and Guinto’s receipt, adequately disproved the charges. The transaction between Botulan and Liwag was private and did not involve Pepsi-Cola’s collections from route sales, as Liwag, the dealer, was directly liable to Pepsi. Botulan had no obligation to remit the proceeds from that private sale to Pepsi. Regarding the Guinto account, evidence showed actual delivery, and Pepsi’s claim of fictitious delivery was self-serving and unsubstantiated. Therefore, no valid ground for dismissal existed.