G.R. Nos. L-53364-65 March 16, 1987
DOMICIANO SOCO, petitioner, vs. MERCANTILE CORPORATION OF DAVAO AND THE HONORABLE AMADO G. INCIONG, DEPUTY MINISTER, MINISTRY OF LABOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Domiciano Soco, President of the MERCO Employees Labor Union and a driver for respondent Mercantile Corporation of Davao (MERCO), was investigated for allegedly using company time and the company vehicle for union activities, specifically to shift his union’s affiliation, in violation of Company Rule No. 19(a). On January 25, 1979, he deviated from his delivery route to meet a co-employee. After refusing to explain this deviation or attend a requested grievance conference, he was suspended for five days on February 13, 1979. On that same date, he again deviated from his route, using the company van to visit a different union office, where his manager discovered the vehicle. Petitioner refused subsequent requests for a grievance meeting.
MERCO filed an application for clearance to terminate Soco, while Soco filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, alleging his suspension was due to union activities. The Regional Director consolidated the cases, granted MERCO’s application for termination, and dismissed the unfair labor practice complaint. The Deputy Minister of Labor affirmed this order.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the consolidated unfair labor practice case; and (2) whether Soco’s dismissal was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the dismissal but awarding separation pay. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that petitioner voluntarily agreed to the consolidation of the termination and unfair labor practice cases before the Regional Director and actively participated by presenting evidence. By seeking affirmative relief without earlier challenging the Director’s authority, Soco was estopped from subsequently questioning the jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court found the dismissal valid. The company rule prohibiting unauthorized use of company vehicles for personal purposes during work hours was reasonable and necessary for business discipline. Soco committed two clear infractions, deviated from his route without permission, and obstinately refused to explain his actions or attend grievance proceedings. This pattern of misconduct justified termination. However, in equitable consideration of his 18 years of service, the Court ordered MERCO to grant Soco separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service. The unfair labor practice complaint was correctly dismissed, as the evidence showed the disciplinary action was based on legitimate violations of company rules, not union activities.