G.R. No. 170454 - Manese vs. Jollibee Foods Corp.

Cecilia T. Manese – First Assistant Store Manager Trainee hired on September 16, 1996, earning a monthly salary of P21,040.00.
Julietes E. Cruz – Second Assistant Store Manager hired on May 7, 1996, with a monthly salary of P16,729.00.
Eufemio M. PeAano II – Shift Manager (functioning as Assistant Store Manager Trainee/Kitchen Manager) hired on June 22, 1998, earning P10,330.00 per month.

Respondent: Jollibee Foods Corporation, with other individual respondents representing corporate and management functions.

The petitioners were members of the team assigned to open a new Jollibee branch located at Festival Mall, Level 4 in Alabang, Muntinlupa City.
The opening, scheduled initially for December 12, 2000, experienced multiple postponements resulting in operational adjustments.

In anticipation of the branch opening, petitioner Cruz requested the delivery of wet and frozen goods, specifically for the preparation of Chickenjoy, to comply with the 30-day thawing process.
Delivery occurred on December 23, 2000, with 450 packs of Chickenjoy (4,500 pieces total) received and subsequently stored in the freezer.
On December 26, 2000, petitioner Cruz thawed the delivered Chickenjoy in preparation for the rescheduled opening on December 28, 2000.
Due to the established shelf life of 25 days (with a three-day post-thaw serving period), remaining stocks not served in time were handled as rejects; valid rejects were usually returned to the commissary while others were disposed of appropriately.

Post-opening, sales targets were not met, and excess or unsold Chickenjoy became a matter of concern.
In January 2001, an attempt by petitioner Cruz to return 150 pieces of rejects was rebuffed by the commissary driver due to their deteriorated condition.
A meeting in the first week of March 2001 led the team to decide on segregating valid rejects from wastes; however, logistical and communication challenges persisted.

During a February 13, 2001 store audit by the area manager, the food stock and safety records were found to be fair and satisfactory, despite underlying issues with the Chickenjoy rejects.
On May 3, 2001, Area Manager Divina Evangelista inspected the store, ordering petitioner Manese to dispose of the rejects, an instruction met with attempts to “return” them for pull-out instead.
On May 8 and May 10, 2001, petitioners Cruz and Manese were required to submit incident reports and accounts regarding the handling of the Chickenjoy rejects.
Memoranda issued on May 15, 2001 formalized the charge against the petitioners, highlighting lapses such as failing to dispose of or reassign the thawed products within the required period and instead risking product contamination and public health concerns.

Petitioners submitted letters of explanation detailing their operational challenges—ranging from temporary power supply issues, lack of proper training, and difficulties with coordinating product returns with the commissary.
Each petitioner received a memorandum notifying them of termination based on loss of trust and confidence, gross negligence, and other misconduct issues related to the mishandling of the Chickenjoy supplies.

Following their termination, petitioners filed complaints alleging illegal dismissal and seeking separation pay, backwages, and other benefits.
The administrative cases were consolidated, with petitioners asserting that their actions were aimed at avoiding wastage and serving the public interest under difficult operational circumstances.

Petitioner Cruz was ruled to have been illegally dismissed and was awarded separation pay due to a strained relationship.
The complaints of petitioners Manese and PeAano were dismissed on grounds of merit, with specific money claims denied.

The NLRC, in resolutions of June 30, 2004, and later reaffirmed by subsequent resolutions, upheld most findings while modifying certain awards—upholding the separation pay for Cruz notwithstanding affirming the dismissals for Manese and PeAano.
On appeal, both the Court of Appeals (August 30, 2005) and the subsequent resolution (November 16, 2005) modified and affirmed decisions:

Petitioners were held legally dismissed based on loss of trust and confidence, particularly for managerial employees.
Special reference was made to issues regarding the handling of Chickenjoy and the alleged deviation from prescribed procedures.

Petitioners raised three primary issues in their petition for review, contesting both jurisdictional and factual determinations regarding their dismissals.

Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the determination on petition of petitioner Cruz, given that the decision of the Labor Arbiter on her illegal dismissal had become final and executory in the absence of a timely appeal.
Whether the procedural rule, as established in SMI Fish Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, bars the appellate court from granting affirmative relief to a respondent who did not timely appeal.

Whether the acts and omissions of petitioners, particularly regarding the handling and alleged mishandling of Chickenjoy rejects, provided a sufficient basis for the dismissal of managerial employees under the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence.
Whether the findings by the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals sufficiently established gross negligence, product tampering, and other misconduct issues to justify the dismissal.

Whether petitioners’ action of serving Chickenjoy beyond the three-day permissible period constituted a danger to public health and product contamination risks, as alleged by the respondent.
Whether the operational difficulties and internal communication issues mitigated or exacerbated the alleged misconduct.

Whether petitioner Manese is entitled to her claimed monetary benefits, given that some claims were offset by alleged outstanding obligations (e.g., the car loan balance).
Whether such offsets belong to the realm of civil disputes rather than labor disputes.