G.R. No. 226089 - Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. vs. Alpuerto

Jesse L. Alpuerto was employed by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (now Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc.) as a Finance Clerk for 11 years.
His assignment was at the petitioner’s warehouse and sales office in San Fernando, Pampanga, where he was stationed at the gates.
His duties comprised physical checking and recording of incoming and outgoing goods, inventory verification, encoding of transaction data, ensuring adherence to procedural controls, and monitoring asset movements within the premises.
He was also responsible for safeguarding company property from unauthorized removal and maintaining accurate records of assets for proper internal control and financial reporting.

On March 12, 2012, while on leave, respondent arrived at the warehouse with his family to pick up nine cases of 237 ml. Coke Zero products.
The products were allegedly classified as bad orders (BOs) due to their expired dates (December 23, 2011 or February 22, 2012).
Respondent replaced the picked goods with empty bottles, thereby substituting the products taken.
He claimed that Rodel Padua, the site Operations Manager of TRCI (an independent contractor for logistics and warehousing), had given him permission to consume the Coke Zero products.
The incident was documented in the warehouse guard’s logbook.

Petitioner issued a Notice to Explain on August 15, 2012, accusing respondent of theft or unauthorized taking of company property, under the Employee’s Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations (Red Book) and the Code of Business Conduct (COBC).
On August 22, 2012, respondent admitted to taking the Coke Zero products, justifying his actions on the ground that the items were already marked as BOs and that permission had been informally given.
During the December 4, 2012, hearing, respondent further stated that he had earlier solicited bad orders and was informed by a checker and other employees (such as Richard Guamos) that the BOs could be treated as empties, and therefore, no additional approval was needed from his superiors.
An Inter-Office Memorandum dated January 8, 2013 formalized his dismissal citing theft of company products, serious misconduct, and loss of trust and confidence due to his failure to secure proper documentation or approval.

Respondent filed for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices on January 21, 2013, seeking reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed respondent’s complaint, upholding his dismissal and considering his admission as evidence of unauthorized taking amounting to theft.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later affirmed the LA’s decision, dismissing the appeal based on inadequacies in the Inventory Write-Off Form (IWOF) and conflicting testimonial evidence regarding the nature and permission of the taking.
Despite respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration (denied on November 19, 2014), he elevated the case through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA reversed the NLRC decision, finding that the evidence supported the notion that the products were already expired BOs, that the volume taken (237 ml.) was essentially equivalent to the permitted 8 ounces, and that there was no malice involved in the taking.
The CA concluded that the dismissal was a too harsh penalty and reduced it to a one-month suspension, ordering reinstatement with back wages (subject to a deduction for the suspension) along with other benefits.

Petitioner (Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc.) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the CA’s findings and arguing that the dismissal was warranted based on theft, serious misconduct, and breach of trust.
Respondent contended that his actions were done in good faith based on verbal permissions and that the evidence did not support an intent to commit theft.
The core factual dispute centered on whether the taking of goods constituted theft under the company’s rules and the Revised Penal Code, and whether the penalty imposed was disproportionate.

Whether respondent’s act of taking out nine cases of Coke Zero products without following the proper procedure constitutes theft or unauthorized taking of company property.
Whether the act, considering the alleged permission from TRCI superiors, was done in good faith and merely the result of an error in judgment rather than a deliberate intent to steal.

Whether the dismissal imposed on respondent, as mandated under the company rules dealing with theft and related infractions, was the proper penalty given the facts of the case.
Whether a lesser penalty (i.e., suspension) is more commensurate with the gravity of the infraction considering respondent’s long tenure and lack of previous derogatory record.

Whether the central question—if the dismissal was too harsh in light of respondent’s good faith reliance on verbal permission—is a question of law or a question of fact.
Whether judicial review should focus on an application of legal principles regarding just causes for dismissal without re-evaluating the evidentiary findings made by the lower tribunals.

Whether the award of back wages should be reduced by the penalty of one-month suspension or whether alternative remedial measures (such as separation pay in lieu of reinstatement) should be applied.
Whether the CA’s modification in awarding legal interest on the back wages is appropriate.