G.R. No. 167449 - Bristol Myers Squibb , Inc. vs. Baban

Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. (petitioner) hired Richard Nixon A. Baban (respondent) in 1992 as District Manager for the Cagayan de Oro-Northern Mindanao area.
Respondent’s duties included promoting the company’s nutritional products to medical practitioners, selling to drug outlets, and supervising territory managers.

On June 22, 1998, during a field audit in Mindanao, an auditor found twenty packs of "Mamacare" sample products in a company car’s baggage compartment, with a note attached containing political overtones.
The note, signed by respondent’s father, Atty. Ricardo S. Baban, Jr., a former Zamboanga City councilor who lost a vice-mayoral bid, conveyed thanks to political supporters.
This indicated the potential unauthorized use of company samples for political purposes.

On July 2, 1998, petitioner’s Medical Sales Director demanded that respondent explain why he should not be terminated.
Respondent admitted attaching the notes but argued that the samples were to be given only to doctors who requested them and had not been distributed. He claimed no damage to the company or personal gain.
Respondent attended conferences and was given opportunity to submit evidence and counsel assistance.
On August 25, 1998, petitioner dismissed respondent for breach of trust.

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and related claims.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on August 30, 1999, upholding dismissal for violation of company rules but ordered payment of admitted monetary liabilities.
The NLRC, in a March 15, 2000 Resolution, reversed the dismissal ruling it illegal, ordered reinstatement with full backwages, and awarded damages and attorney’s fees.
Upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself on October 23, 2000, reinstating the dismissal but awarding separation pay instead of reinstatement.
The NLRC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 3, 2001.

Respondent petitioned the CA, which in a decision dated September 24, 2004, reinstated the NLRC’s earlier grant of reinstatement, ruling dismissal unjustified and too harsh.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on March 9, 2005.

Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the CA’s reinstatement of the employee and damages award.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reinstatement of respondent with full backwages and damages despite finding him guilty of breach of trust.

Whether respondent, as a confidential employee found to have willfully breached employer’s trust, may validly be dismissed.

Whether separation pay is proper in case of dismissal for breach of trust by such employee.