Case Digest (G.R. No. 229920)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 229920)
Facts:
Samuel Mamaril v. The Red System Company, Inc., G.R. No. 229920, July 04, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Samuel Mamaril was employed by respondent The Red System Company, Inc. as a delivery service representative starting June 1, 2011; he was paid a daily wage and was required to attend pre-employment orientations and safety seminars that imposed written and oral rules (e.g., use of a tire choke, hand brake, and shifting to first gear when parking) to prevent movement of trucks during loading/unloading.
Within days of his hiring, Mamaril failed to follow the safety rules, causing movement of a parked truck and damage to Coca‑Cola products and to the vehicle; he concealed the incident. He was reassigned as a warehouse yard driver but, on November 12, 2011, again failed to apply required safety measures; the parked truck moved and hit another vehicle, causing more damage which he again concealed until an investigation in early 2012 identified him. Red System issued a Notice to Explain (April 10, 2012), received Mamaril’s written explanation (May 3, 2012), and held an administrative hearing (June 8, 2012), during which Mamaril admitted failure to follow safety instructions and other infractions (pilferage, tardiness). While the investigation was pending, the company placed him under a one‑month preventive suspension effective August 3, 2012; he failed to report as directed on September 4 and returned belatedly on September 18. After the hearing, Red System dismissed him for willful disobedience and willful breach of trust under Article 297 (formerly Art. 282) of the Labor Code.
Mamaril filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter (LA). On November 20, 2013, the LA (Joseph Martin R. Castillo) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Mamaril appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on April 24, 2014, affirmed the LA but modified to award Mamaril 13th month pay and service incentive leave (SIL) pay limited to three years prior to suit under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Mamaril then filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On September 9, 2016, the CA (in CA‑G.R. SP No. 06413‑MIN) denied relief and affirmed the NLRC resolution. Thereafter, Mamaril sought review in the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues:
- Was petitioner Samuel Mamaril illegally dismissed by respondent The Red System Company, Inc., and is he entitled to reinstatement and full backwages?
- Did respondent impose a double penalty by first placing petitioner under preventive suspension and later dismissing him for the same infractions?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)