Case Digest (G.R. No. 170454)
Facts:
Cecilia T. Manese, Juliets E. Cruz, and Eufemio Penano II v. Jollibee Foods Corporation, G.R. No. 170454, October 11, 2012, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Cecilia T. Manese, Julietes E. Cruz, and Eufemio M. Penano II were managerial employees of respondent Jollibee Foods Corporation assigned to open and operate the Festival Mall, Level 4 branch in December 2000. In the lead-up to the opening the store’s schedule was postponed repeatedly; 450 packs (4,500 pieces) of Chickenjoy were delivered on December 23, 2000 and thawed for the anticipated opening. The product’s shelf-life rules required serving within three days of thawing; because of postponements, storage issues, discoloration and eventual deterioration, portions of the thawed Chickenjoy remained unserved and were kept in the walk-in freezer as “rejects.” Petitioners attempted to return rejects to the commissary and to seek alternative storage or transfers to other branches; on several occasions drivers refused to accept the rejects.
On May 3, 2001 the area manager, Divina Evangelista, found Chickenjoy rejects in the store freezer and instructed their disposal. Administrative steps followed: Evangelista issued a memorandum with a charge sheet (May 15, 2001) charging petitioners with extremely serious misconduct, gross negligence, product tampering, fraud/falsification of records and insubordination in connection with 2,130 pieces declared wastage after a corporate audit. Petitioners submitted written explanations; an Investigating Committee and an administrative hearing were conducted by respondent Jollibee’s human resources and operations officers and corporate counsel.
On June 11 and 13, 2001 the Investigating Committee issued memoranda notifying each petitioner that they were terminated for loss of trust and confidence. The terminated petitioners filed consolidated complaints for illegal dismissal and related monetary and damages claims before the Labor Arbiter. On July 31, 2003 the Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaints of Manese and Penano but ruled in favor of Cruz, finding her dismissal illegal and awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement; the Arbiter denied backwages to Cruz on equitable grounds and disallowed several monetary claims of Manese for reasons explained in the decision.
Respondents filed an Opposition to Appeal before the NLRC rather than a timely appeal. On June 30, 2004 the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Resolution ostensibly affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto, but noted that Cruz had in fact committed the offenses; NLRC nonetheless refused to disturb the Arbiter’s favorable finding for Cruz because respondents failed to interpose a timely appeal. Petitioners moved for reconsideration before the NLRC, which was denied on October 29, 2004.
Petitioners then sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. On August 30, 2005 the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC resolutions with modifications: it declared petitioner Cruz legally dismissed under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code (contrary to the Labor Arbiter) and, inter alia, directed payment to Manese of unpaid salary (June 1–15, 2001), sick leave (May 16–31, 2001) and cooperative savings; the CA ordered the Labor Arbiter to compute Manese’s monetary claims. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied (November 16, 2005).
...(Subscriber-Only)Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals exceed its jurisdiction by declaring Julietes E. Cruz legally dismissed despite the Labor Arbiter’s decision that her dismissal was illegal having become final for want of a timely appeal by respondents?
- Was the dismissal of Cecilia T. Manese and Eufemio M. Penano II valid for loss of trust and confidence under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, given their managerial status and the factual findings below?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in its factual finding that petitioners served Chickenjoy beyond the three-day serving period and thereby exposed public health ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)