Title
A. Marquez, Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 63227
Decision Date
Mar 15, 1984
Cecilio Apolinario, a driver for A. Marquez, Inc., claimed illegal dismissal after being barred from driving due to a theft-related ban by San Miguel Corp. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal justified, citing the ban, and awarded separation pay due to the company's cessation of operations.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 63227)

Facts:

Employment and Alleged Dismissal

  • Cecilio Apolinario was employed as a driver for A. Marquez, Inc., a company engaged in hauling empty Coca-Cola bottles from the Zamboanga City wharf to the Coca-Cola Plant at Tetuan, Zamboanga City.
  • Apolinario worked almost daily for over three years, earning a daily wage of P12.00.
  • On April 25, 1978, Apolinario was allegedly illegally dismissed when he was not allowed to drive the cargo truck he usually drove. Instead, another driver was assigned to the truck.

Complaint and Initial Proceedings

  • Apolinario filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that he was not allowed to drive the truck without sufficient cause and that his plea to continue driving was ignored.
  • He also claimed that the manager refused to see him the following day, citing his denial of involvement in the alleged theft of empty Coke shells as the reason for his dismissal.
  • The complaint was initially dismissed due to Apolinario's failure to appear at a hearing, but it was reinstated upon his motion for reconsideration.

Arguments Presented

  • Apolinario argued that:
    1. The petitioner did not file an application for clearance to terminate his services.
    2. No investigation was conducted regarding the alleged theft.
    3. The theft accusation was baseless, as the empty Coke shells could have been placed under the truck by someone else.
  • The petitioner, A. Marquez, Inc., countered that Apolinario was banned from entering the Coca-Cola Plant premises due to a theft incident involving empty Coke shells, as reported by the Coca-Cola Plant's accountant.

Regional Director's Decision

  • The Regional Director dismissed Apolinario's complaint, finding that he voluntarily left his employment after being denied the driving assignment and sought employment elsewhere.

Appeal to the Ministry of Labor

  • Apolinario appealed to the Ministry of Labor, which ruled in his favor, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with full backwages and benefits.
  • The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, citing the retirement of its business license in 1980. The Deputy Minister modified the order, granting Apolinario separation pay and backwages until the business ceased operations.

Issue:

  1. Whether Apolinario was illegally dismissed by A. Marquez, Inc.
  2. Whether the petitioner's refusal to allow Apolinario to drive the cargo truck was justified due to the ban imposed by San Miguel Corporation.
  3. Whether the petitioner's failure to conduct an investigation into the theft allegation constituted a violation of due process.
  4. Whether the Deputy Minister of Labor's orders were proper under the circumstances.

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Deputy Minister of Labor and reinstated the Regional Director's decision dismissing Apolinario's complaint.
  • The Court held that the petitioner's refusal to allow Apolinario to drive the cargo truck was justified due to the ban imposed by San Miguel Corporation, which prohibited Apolinario from entering the Coca-Cola Plant premises.
  • The Court found that the petitioner could not have conducted a personal investigation into the theft charge without risking its business relationship with San Miguel Corporation.
  • The Court modified the Regional Director's order, directing the petitioner to grant Apolinario separation pay equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service and other benefits due to the cessation of the petitioner's business operations.

Ratio:

  1. Justification for Refusal to Assign Apolinario: The petitioner's refusal to allow Apolinario to drive the cargo truck was justified due to the ban imposed by San Miguel Corporation. Allowing Apolinario to drive would have been futile, as he was prohibited from entering the Coca-Cola Plant premises.
  2. Impracticality of Investigation: The petitioner could not have conducted a personal investigation into the theft charge without risking its hauling contract with San Miguel Corporation. The ban was based on San Miguel Corporation's findings, and the petitioner had no control over this decision.
  3. Separation Pay and Benefits: Since the petitioner ceased operations, Apolinario was entitled to separation pay and other benefits, computed from the date he stopped working (April 25, 1978).
  4. Due Process and Fairness: The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not be penalized for circumstances beyond its control, such as the ban imposed by San Miguel Corporation. The orders of the Deputy Minister of Labor were deemed unfair and impractical under the circumstances.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.