39 Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc (TAN)

Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.
, Inc
June 15, 2005 | Ynares-Santiago, J. | Procedural Requirements > Good faith of employee
PETITIONER: Cornelio C. Cruz

RESPONDENTS: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc, Manuel A. Remulla, Jr., Romeo A. Lara, and/or Rene P. Horrilleno
SUMMARY: Cornelio Cruz was dismissed after trying to sneak out several cases of soft drinks without the necessary documents.
SC said he was validly dismissed.
Several factors militate against the claim of good faith. One of which is length of service as the
longer an employee stays in the service of the company, the greater is his responsibility for knowledge and
compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of discipline in the company.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
Cornelio Cruz is a driver/helper in Coca-Cola. At
times, however, petitioner gets designated as Acting
Salesman for respondents soft drinks and other
beverages.
On July 25, 1998, Cornelio was assigned as acting
salesman covering the small barangays within the
Calamba Area. Together with his helper, Mr. Pablito
Aguila, petitioner loaded their truck with coke
products. After the required verification and
confirmation of the products loaded on the truck by
the Checker and the guard at the gate, petitioner
proceeded to leave the plant vicinity.
After gate inspection, however, petitioner drove back
inside the plant on the pretext of refueling. While
waiting in line to refuel, petitioner allegedly asked
Aguila to load an additional thirty (30) cases of
assorted canned soft drinks as plus load. As there was
no Temporary Gate Pass (TGP) and Load Order Gate
Pass (LOGP) prepared for the additional products,
Aguila reminded Cornelio about the required
documents but he merely stated Ayos na and
continued with the refueling of the truck.
On his second exit from the plant premises, petitioner
did not slow down for the mandatory inspection even
as the security guards at the gate flagged him down.
was confirmed that petitioner did not actually secure

any paper for the added products nor did he follow
the established procedure before taking out the extra
cases.
Cornelio was dismissed thus the case for illegal
dismissal.
LA, NLRC and CA all ruled against Cornelia saying
that he was guilty of dishonest acts.
ISSUE: W/N the dismissal was valid? YES

RULING: The dismissal of petitioner is declared valid but
respondent company is ORDERED to pay petitioner the
amount of P20,000.00 as nominal damages for noncompliance with statutory due process.
RATIO:
Time and again we have held that the findings of fact
of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC and of the
Labor Arbiter are accorded with respect, even
finality, if supported by substantial evidence.
Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the
Court of Appeals, these are binding and conclusive
upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.
Several factors militate against petitioners claim of
good faith. Petitioners length of service, which spans
almost fifteen (15) years, works against his favor in
that he reminded petitioner of whether he had secured

the gate pass for the products, and petitioner merely
replied, Ayos na. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
found no reason to disregard Aguilars statement
which was candid, straightforward and in harmony
with the statements of the other witnesses. More
importantly, the statement is consistent with how
petitioner acted on that fateful day. Petitioner was
described to have left the plant premises without
stopping at the gates for the mandatory inspection.
His suspicious actions, thus, prompted the dispatch of
security to pursue his truck.
As to propriety of penalty imposed
LA and CA termination
NLRC suspension
Admittedly, the company rules violated by petitioner

are punishable, for the first offense, with the penalty
of suspension. However, respondent company has
presented evidence showing that petitioner has a
record of other violations from as far back as 1986.
In 1991, petitioner was found to have deliberately
misrepresented on two occasions the total number of
empties and was consequently suspended for six (6)
days. In 1990 and 1991, petitioner was also
suspended for his involvement in vehicular accidents,

which caused damage to another car and an outlet
store. On several occasions, petitioner has been
investigated for shortages in remittances of
collections from customers. These misdemeanors are
aggravated by several AWOLS which petitioner had
taken in the course of his employment.
It would appear that respondent company had
tolerated petitioners work ethic far too long. We
therefore find that it was justified in terminating
petitioner after the flagrant dishonesty he committed.
As to procedural requirements for termination

Notices given to petitioner were legally deficient.
The first notice dated July 27, 1998,[32] did not

contain the particulars of the charges nor the
circumstances in which the violation happened. The
notice was also couched in general terms that it only
mentions the specific sections and rule numbers of
the Red Book that was violated without defining
what such violation was. A cursory reading of this
notice likewise shows that it does not state that
petitioner was in fact facing a possible dismissal from
the company. Consequently, petitioner was not
sufficiently apprised of the gravity of the situation he
was in.

39 Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc (TAN)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

39 Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc (TAN)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

39 Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc (TAN)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.

PETITIONER: Cornelio C. Cruz

was confirmed that petitioner did not actually secure

ISSUE: W/N the dismissal was valid? YES

that he reminded petitioner of whether he had secured

Admittedly, the company rules violated by petitioner

suspended for his involvement in vehicular accidents,

As to procedural requirements for termination

The first notice dated July 27, 1998,[32] did not

You might also like