Case Digest (G.R. No. 118434)
Facts:
In Sixta C. Lim v. National Labor Relations Commission and Pepsi-Cola Far East Trade Development Co., Inc., G.R. No. 118434, July 26, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court, the petitioner sought relief by a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to annul the NLRC decision validating her dismissal.Petitioner Sixta C. Lim was employed by Pepsi-Cola Far East Trade Development Co., Inc. (PEPSI) as Staff Accountant (employed by PEPSI since June 15, 1983, and in the Pepsi Group since January 1, 1981). Her duties involved cost accounting (production and financial reporting), payroll, statutory reporting, accounts receivable, petty cash custody, and check preparation. PEPSI had a small workforce (19 employees) and maintained a performance appraisal system that was revised in late 1989.
Under the original appraisal nomenclature Lim received mostly satisfactory ratings (e.g., "S" Superior in 1984; "C" Commendable for 1987–88). After the revised system (effective in 1989), she was rated "BT" (Below Target) for 1 July–31 December 1989 and again for 1990, with particular criticism directed at her production reporting and financial reporting (which together comprised 60% of her overall rating). PEPSI's appraisal forms and memoranda identified specific deficiencies, suggested areas for improvement, and listed corrective measures; PEPSI's brochure “Managing Performance For the 90s” classified performance ratings and indicated that even the lowest rating (Significantly Below Target, SB) justified probation rather than dismissal.
Lim wrote several letters contesting the appraisals, explaining that some discrepancies arose while she was on maternity leave and blaming delayed data from others; she also appealed to a PepsiCo official in Japan. PEPSI twice invited her to resign voluntarily with termination benefits; she refused. She was verbally informed of termination on May 6, 1991, and received a formal Termination Letter dated May 15, 1991, stating dismissal for "gross inefficiency" effective May 31, 1991.
On May 14–15, 1991 Lim filed a complaint for "dismissal without due process" with the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter (Geobel A. Bartolabac) ruled for Lim on July 30, 1993, ordering reinstatement (or separation pay at the company’s option), awards for 13th-month pay and backwages, and attorneys’ fees. PEPSI appealed to the NLRC. On October 28, 1994, the NLRC Second Division reversed the Labor Arbiter, validated Lim’s dismissal for gross inefficiency under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, and directed PEPSI to pay separation benefits equivalent to one month pay per year of service; Lim’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 13, 1994.
Lim filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the National Labor Relations Commission commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter and validating Lim’s dismissal?
- Was Lim validly dismissed for "gross inefficiency" as a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code?
- Were the procedural due process (twin-notice and hearing) requirements of Article 277 and the Omnibus Rules observed in Lim’s termination?
- Is Lim entitled to separatio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)