Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38482)
Facts:
The case involves Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company as the petitioner and Teotimo De Mesa as the private respondent. Teotimo De Mesa was first employed by the petitioner on July 1, 1933, as a bus conductor and continued until December 31, 1941, when the company ceased operations due to World War II. After the war, he rejoined the company on May 22, 1945, and eventually rose to the position of administrative officer, earning a monthly salary of P1,000.00. His total length of service amounted to 30 years, 9 months, and 17 days, which, under Republic Act No. 1787, is considered equivalent to 31 years.
In September 1967, De Mesa drew two unauthorized cash advances of P100.00 each, totaling P200.00, in violation of company policy that restricted cash advances for confidential employees to P100.00 per payroll period. Consequently, he was dismissed from service effective September 9, 1967, through a Special Order issued by the Acting General Manager of the petitioner. Following ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38482)
Facts:
Employment History
- Private respondent Teotimo de Mesa was first employed as a bus conductor by the Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (petitioner) on July 1, 1933, and worked until December 31, 1941, when the company ceased operations due to World War II.
- He rejoined the company on May 22, 1945, after the war, and rose to the position of administrative officer with a basic salary of P1,000.00 per month.
- His total length of service was 30 years, 9 months, and 17 days, which under Republic Act No. 1787 amounts to 31 years.
Termination of Employment
- In September 1967, de Mesa drew two cash advances ("vales") of P100.00 each (totaling P200.00) from the company's station at Infanta, Quezon, without prior approval, violating a company memorandum restricting cash advances for confidential employees to P100.00 per payroll period.
- As a result, his services were terminated effective September 9, 1967, via a Special Order issued by the Acting General Manager.
Claims Filed by De Mesa
- De Mesa filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Laguna (Branch III) seeking:
- P19,987.56 as separation pay;
- P17,050.00 as retirement benefits;
- P35,018.53 as "would-be earnings" had he not been separated;
- P13,720.50 for loss of Social Security benefits;
- P200,000.00 as moral damages;
- P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- P10,000.00 for attorney's fees; and
- P2,000.00 as litigation expenses.
Petitioner's Defense
- The petitioner argued that de Mesa's dismissal was justified due to his repeated violation of the company's cash advance policy, which constituted an abuse of trust and confidence.
- The petitioner also claimed that de Mesa had signed a promissory note acknowledging the policy and agreeing to severe punishment if he violated it.
Trial Court Decision
- The Court of First Instance ruled that de Mesa's dismissal was for just cause, and he was not entitled to separation pay or damages.
- However, the court ordered the petitioner to pay de Mesa P17,050.00 as retirement pay, plus attorney's fees and costs, while dismissing all other claims.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Both parties appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court's ruling, ordering the petitioner to pay de Mesa:
- P17,050.00 as retirement benefits;
- P19,987.56 as separation pay;
- Minus his outstanding debt of P13,087.86 to the company.
Issue:
- Whether de Mesa's dismissal was lawful and not arbitrary.
- Whether de Mesa is entitled to both separation pay and retirement benefits despite having received separation pay.
- Whether the petitioner violated de Mesa's right to due process by dismissing him without a hearing.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed that de Mesa was entitled to both separation pay and retirement benefits, and his dismissal without a hearing was unlawful. The petitioner was ordered to pay the amounts awarded by the Court of Appeals, with costs against the petitioner.