G.R. No. 178236 - Salas vs. Aboitiz One, Inc.

Salas was hired by Aboitiz One, Inc. on May 11, 1993, initially serving as an assistant utility man in the Maintenance Department – Manila Office.
He was later promoted to material controller on February 22, 2000, with the responsibility of monitoring and maintaining the availability and supply of Quickbox essential to the company’s daily operations.

On June 4, 2003, a critical stock issue arose when Aboitiz ran out of Large Quickbox, negatively affecting the company’s operations.
On June 5, 2003, Aboitiz issued a memorandum directing Salas to provide a written explanation within 72 hours regarding:

His failure to monitor the stock level of Large Quickbox, which resulted in a stock out;
His failure to report the critical shortage to his immediate superior when the stock level became dangerously low.

An administrative hearing was held on June 10, 2003, affording Salas the opportunity to explain the incident.
On July 2, 2003, following the hearing, Aboitiz issued a decision notice terminating Salas for:

Alleged gross neglect of duty for the failure to monitor and report critical levels of Quickbox;
Tampering with the Bin Card by altering the date (from May 31 to June 2, 2003) to cover up his alleged negligence and mislead the investigating team;
Breach of the trust inherent in his role as warehouseman, responsible for safeguarding and monitoring company property.

Availment of the early retirement plan, citing 10 years of service and family financial needs;
The option to tender his resignation instead of being terminated;
An extension of his employment until July 31, 2003 to allow time to secure another job.

Mr. Hamoy, responding via email, denied the request for retirement or resignation but granted a one-month extension until August 15, 2003.

Claiming termination without just cause, Salas filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter seeking reinstatement, full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the employer, sustaining the dismissal on the ground of Salas’ remiss performance due to his negligence.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, holding that while Salas was negligent, the misconduct did not amount to gross negligence justifying dismissal; consequently, Salas was entitled to separation pay rather than reinstatement and full backwages.

The CA consolidated petitions from both parties and, on January 31, 2007, reversed the NLRC ruling by sustaining the dismissal on the following grounds:

Serious misconduct under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code (notably, tampering with records);
Gross and habitual neglect under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code;
Willful breach of the trust reposed in him as a warehouseman under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, including the unauthorized sale of used air-conditioners.

Salas filed a motion for reconsideration (denied on June 13, 2007) and petitioned to the Supreme Court, arguing that:

The CA erred in reversing the NLRC decision by equating a single act of negligence to grounds for dismissal;
The determination of gross negligence and willful breach of trust was not substantiated by the evidence.

Aboitiz argued that the petition suffered from procedural defects, including alleged deficiencies in the duplicate original and record portions, inconsistency with the required dates, and a defective certification of non-forum shopping.
The Supreme Court found that Salas’ submission substantially met the requirements of the Rules of Court, and the minor typographical error did not justify dismissal of the petition.

Whether Salas’ actions, including his failure to adequately monitor stock levels and his delay in reporting, constituted gross negligence or merely negligence insufficient to justify dismissal.
Whether the evidence supported the imposition of disciplinary measures on grounds of serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect, and willful breach of trust.
Whether the unauthorized sale of used air-conditioners and the tampering with the bin card were valid grounds, particularly considering that some allegations were raised after the dismissal or never substantiated during earlier proceedings.
Whether Aboitiz properly consolidated and relied upon past offenses, and if such past infractions were directly related to the incident that led to termination.
Whether the procedural requirements for filing the petition before the Supreme Court were met despite minor errors, ensuring that the case should be determined on its merits rather than dismissed on technicalities.