G.R. No. 159218 - Abunado vs. People

Private respondent Danilo C. Parino was hired by petitioner Filipro, Inc. as a salesman on September 25, 1978.
After a six-month probationary period, he became a regular employee effective March 25, 1979.

In March 1980, several complaints were received by the petitioner from customers and dealers alleging that they were not being properly served.
Investigations conducted on March 27 and 29, 1980 by Mr. Raymond P. Velasco, the sales supervisor, revealed that Parino engaged in “table distribution.”

"Table distribution" involved misreporting fictitious sales to make it appear that products were distributed to many customers when in fact they were sold to only a few.
Parino reported sales to fictitious stores to hide the actual large sale to a favored store.

On March 17, 1980, Parino was found to have sold 23 cases of Nescafe coffee to a dealer (R. Reyes store in Bangkal, Makati) and received P180.00 in return for providing favorable treatment.
He entered the sale in three different daily sales slips, covering non-existent stores to mask the irregularities.
Additional irregularity was noted on February 11, 1980, where Parino sold several products totaling P1,624.60 without issuing a daily sales slip, instead providing his own computation that deliberately overvalued one item.

In May 1979, Parino had already engaged in “table distribution” and had been warned that repeated misconduct would incur a more severe penalty.

As a consequence of his prior offense, Parino was suspended for two weeks (June 28 – July 13, 1979).
On March 31, 1980, he was again placed under preventive suspension for repeating the offense.

On May 8, 1980, petitioner filed an application for clearance to dismiss Parino on grounds of dishonesty and loss of confidence.
Parino filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment on May 16, 1980, protesting his suspension and opposing his clearance for dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on February 5, 1981, dismissing Parino’s complaint and granting clearance for his termination.
The case was then elevated to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on June 18, 1982, affirmed the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter but modified the penalty, replacing dismissal with a progressive penalty of suspension.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging the NLRC’s decision, which was denied on January 9, 1985, prompting the petition for certiorari.

Petitioner relied on Article 283(c) of the Labor Code, which permits termination for fraud or the wilful breach of trust.
The petitioner contended that Parino’s repeated infractions and deliberate misrepresentation of sales figures eroded the trust and confidence necessary for the performance of his duties.
It was argued that allowing Parino to remain employed, even with no immediate economic loss to the company, would be detrimental to the company’s discipline, marketability, and overall business interest.

Whether the dismissal of an employee—whose acts of misrepresentation and fraudulent behavior in sales reporting ("table distribution") constitute a breach of trust—should be sustained despite the absence of demonstrable economic loss to the employer.

Is the offense of “table distribution” sufficient to justify dismissal under Article 283(c) of the Labor Code?
Should the employer’s right to terminate be exercised even when company policies did not explicitly prescribe dismissal as the penalty for the said offense?

Whether the intervention by the NLRC in substituting dismissal with a progressive penalty of suspension was proper in light of the gravity of the employee’s misconduct.

Does a lenient view favoring employee rights undermine the employer's fundamental prerogative to protect its interests against acts of dishonesty and misfeasance?
How should conflicting interests between protecting employees and upholding company discipline be balanced in cases involving breach of trust?