G.R. No. L-21079 - IN RE: Koa Heng vs. Republic

The private respondent, Reynato B. Aguinaldo, was employed by Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. as a bus conductor.
His duties included issuing both passenger and freight tickets and ensuring that payments for all cargo and fares were appropriately collected and accounted for.

On the said date, Aguinaldo was scheduled, along with bus driver Conrado Collado, to operate Bus No. 575 for a trip from Baguio City to Manila, departing at 10 p.m.
Arriving 30 minutes early, Aguinaldo observed that bundles of flowers had already been loaded on the bus.
He inquired with the freight clerk regarding payment for the freight fare and was informed that payment had been made, as evidenced by a bill of lading for P800.00.
Relying on the bill of lading, Aguinaldo issued a freight ticket.
As the bus was already full—having departed Baguio City 15 minutes earlier than scheduled—the arrangement led to complications later in the trip.

While approaching Camp 6 at Tuba, Benguet, inspectors Jessie C. Sy and Silverio Mendoza boarded the bus.
They found that two passengers lacked issued tickets; Aguinaldo then issued tickets for these passengers upon instruction.
At the Tarlac terminal, inspectors discovered that eight bundles of flowers on board were not recorded in the bill of lading, prompting Aguinaldo to issue an additional freight ticket and personally pay the freight fare for the extra cargo.

Due to the above incidents, Aguinaldo was informed of his placement under preventive suspension on September 18, 1988.
On September 21, 1988, the company issued a memorandum confirming his suspension, stating the grounds (failure to issue freight and passenger tickets as required) and instructing him to report for investigation within three days.
On September 26, 1988, an investigation was conducted by operations manager Ricardo J. Castaed, Jr., during which Aguinaldo admitted to the alleged violations.

After a suspension period that ultimately exceeded 30 days, Aguinaldo attempted to return to work but was denied entry into the company premises.
Consequently, on April 26, 1989, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
A termination notice dated April 11, 1989 was served on him on May 3, 1989.

On December 20, 1989, the Labor Arbiter found that Aguinaldo was dismissed without just cause and without being accorded due process, awarding him backwages (computed for 382 working days) and separation pay if reinstatement was not possible.
The NLRC later affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision on October 29, 1990, though modifying the award to order reinstatement with one year’s backwages, deleting the alternative remedies of separation pay and attorney’s fees.
The petitioner (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.) moved for reconsideration, which was denied on February 28, 1991, leading to the petition for certiorari.

The petitioner argued that it had complied with the legal requirements of just cause and due process.
It relied on the memorandum served on September 20, 1988, asserting that Aguinaldo was given ample notice of the charges and a formal opportunity to be heard during the investigation.
Additionally, the petitioner emphasized that Aguinaldo’s prior record of similar violations—having received reprimands and warnings—justified the dismissal on the grounds of serious misconduct, gross neglect of duties, and willful breach of trust.

Whether private respondent was accorded sufficient notice as required by the Labor Code and the Omnibus Implementing Rules when he was placed under preventive suspension and later dismissed.
Whether the memorandum served constituted an adequate statement of the charges and warning of impending dismissal.

Whether Aguinaldo’s failure to issue the proper tickets and to personally count the cargo constituted just cause for dismissal.
Whether the repeated nature of his violations and previous disciplinary actions validated the imposition of the harsher sanction of dismissal.

Whether extending the preventive suspension beyond the 30-day period, without payment of wages or benefits during the extension, violated the Omnibus Rules.
Whether the subsequent termination notice was sufficient and timely to justify dismissal.

Whether the award of backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees were correctly computed and appropriate in light of both the employee’s misconduct and his long service record.
Whether, as a measure of social justice, separation pay should be granted even for employees dismissed for cause, provided the misconduct did not reflect on their moral character.

Whether reliance on the freight clerk’s action in counting the cargo could be excused as an occupational risk, or if the conductor’s personal responsibility to verify such details was mandatory.