G.R. No. 63227 . March 15, 1984.
A. MARQUEZ, INC., Petitioner, vs. DEPUTY MINISTER VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR. and CECILIO APOLINARIO, Respondents.

FACTS

Cecilio Apolinario, a driver for A. Marquez, Inc. for over three years, was barred from driving his assigned cargo truck on April 25, 1978. The company’s action was based on a letter from the Zamboanga Coca-Cola Plant’s accountant, which reported that Apolinario had been found guilty of an attempted theft of empty Coke shells and was consequently banned from entering the plant premises. The petitioner’s business primarily involved hauling empty bottles from the wharf to the Coca-Cola plant. Apolinario filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing he was dismissed without the required clearance from the Ministry of Labor and without any investigation by his employer into the theft allegation.
The Regional Director initially dismissed the complaint, finding Apolinario had voluntarily left his employment. On appeal, Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr. reversed this, declaring the dismissal illegal due to the lack of clearance and a proper investigation. The Deputy Minister ordered reinstatement with full backwages. Upon the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which noted the company had retired its business license in January 1980, the order was modified to grant separation pay and backwages only until the business cessation date.

ISSUE

Was Cecilio Apolinario illegally dismissed by A. Marquez, Inc.?

RULING

No, the Supreme Court ruled that Apolinario was not illegally dismissed. The Court reinstated the Regional Director’s original order dismissing the complaint, albeit with modification to grant separation benefits. The legal logic centered on the distinction between dismissal and a refusal to assign work due to an external ban that rendered the employee unable to perform his specific duties. The Court found that the petitioner’s act of not allowing Apolinario to drive was not a termination of employment but a consequence of the ban imposed by San Miguel Corporation (Coca-Cola Plant), a major client. This ban effectively prevented Apolinario from performing his primary function of delivering to that plant. The employer’s failure to assign him to other work was not deemed a dismissal, as there was no showing that the company serviced other clients to which he could have been reassigned, and this factual issue was not raised in the proceedings below. Therefore, the cessation of his work was not an unlawful termination by the employer. However, since the company eventually ceased operations, Apolinario was entitled to separation pay equivalent to one-half month’s pay per year of service and other benefits due to employees upon business closure, computed from April 25, 1978. The orders of the Deputy Minister were set aside.