Case Digest (G.R. No. 248108)
Facts:
Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Angelo T. Pacana, G.R. No. 248108, July 14, 2021, First Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. (petitioner) employed respondent Angelo T. Pacana (respondent/Pacana) beginning July 16, 2013; Pacana became a Key Accounts Manager (KAM) on February 16, 2014, responsible for booking products and collecting sales from assigned accounts, including Mega Integrated Agro Livestock Farm Corp. (Mega Farm).Disputes arose after alleged irregularities in transactions with Mega Farm. Petitioner issued a Notice of Specific Charge/Notice of Preventive Suspension (NTE) dated August 28, 2015, accusing Pacana of ghost deliveries (P204,522.00) and misapplication/falsification of payments and documents (aggregate P261,846.18), and placed him on preventive suspension beginning August 27–28, 2015. An administrative investigation was held on September 4, 2015; Pacana attended and, according to the record, admitted deviations from procedure, use of FIFO inappropriately, and falsification of certain settlement documents. His preventive suspension was extended and he was dismissed by memorandum dated October 19, 2015.
Pacana filed a Complaint and Amended Complaint for illegal dismissal and other claims before the Labor Arbiter (LA). In a Decision dated May 16, 2016, the LA declared the dismissal illegal for lack of just cause and due process, awarded separation pay, nominal damages, attorney’s fees, and ordered other relief while dismissing some claims. The NLRC, in its Resolution dated October 26, 2016, affirmed the LA’s ruling but deleted the award for illegal deductions. The Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated August 31, 2018 (CA-G.R. SP No. 07889‑MIN), affirmed the NLRC finding that Pacana’s dismissal lacked just cause and that he was denied ample opportunity to be...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Pacana dismissed without due process?
- Was Pacana dismissed without just cause (loss of trust and confidence...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)