Coca Cola vs NLRC

(TERMINATION OF similar functions ng manager)

Facts:

Fernando Vega promoted to regular salesman in 1978. In the same year, however, on charges of issuing temporary credit sales receipts and denying dealer’s accounts, he was demoted to relief salesman. He was also suspended for one (1) month and six (6) days and grounded for six (6) months. In 1981, he was again promoted

to regular salesman. He held the same position until June 26, 1984 when he was terminated from employment on the charge of falsification of route sales report. On July 16, 1984, he filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, unpaid wages and separation pay and for damages and attorney’s fees. He alleged that he was dismissed without lawful cause because the falsification imputed to him did not result from deliberate and malicious intent but from honest mistake and oversight. On July 24, 1986, the Labor Arbiter found in favor of Vega. He ruled that any error in the entries in the sales report was made unintentionally and may probably be due to the sudden brownout alleged by Vega. He opined that the penalty of dismissal was too severe considering Vega’s seven years of dedicated service to the company. The NLRC was not convinced that the falsification was unintentional. It further observed that under company rules, the infraction calls for the penalty of dismissal. It, however, noted Vega’s seven years of service to the company and accordingly ordered his reinstatement with only three (3) months backwages.

ISSUE:

W/N the dismissal is correct.

HELD:

We rule in favor of Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. The NLRC’s order of reinstatement based on the sole ground of length of service does it find support in either law or jurisprudence. When adequately proven, the dual grounds of breach of trust and loss of confidence constitute valid and ample bases to warrant termination of an errant employee. “If there is sufficient evidence that an employee has been guilty of a breach of trust or that his employer has ample reasons to distrust him, the labor tribunal cannot justly deny to the employer the authority to dismiss such an employee Salesmen are highly individualistic personnel who have to be trusted and left essentially on their own. A high degree of confidence is reposed in them when they are entrusted with funds or properties of their employer. As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who, while not of similar rank, perform functions which by their nature require the employer’s full trust and confidence. This must be distinguished from the case of ordinary rank-and-file employees, whose termination on the basis of these same grounds requires a higher proof of involvement in the events in question; mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice.