G.R. No. 124348 - Sanchez vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Dominador Sanchez was employed as a route salesman of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI-COLA) since 1976.
His principal responsibilities included marketing and merchandising Pepsi-Cola products, collecting daily sales proceeds, granting credit to company outlets, and delivering products within his assigned territory in Quezon City.
Salesmen like Sanchez were entrusted with significant responsibilities and company property, making their trustworthiness pivotal to the smooth operation of the business.

In June 1990, an audit covering the transactions for April and May 1990 revealed discrepancies in Sanchez’s daily load sheets.
The audit showed a padding of 200 cases of “empties” (empty bottle containers) during the “load in” procedure, resulting in an unaccounted excess of 200 cases valued at P13,200.00.
Additionally, 331 cases of “empties” worth P22,252.00 were erroneously recorded in his load sheet, suggesting that such items, which can be converted into cash, were improperly handled.

The discrepancies pointed to a breach of company rules and procedures regarding the proper accounting of collections and inventories.
Company policies prohibited the failure to remit or account for all sales collections, borrowing company property (including “empties” or “fulls”), and any acts of dishonesty.
In a letter dated 18 July 1990, Sanchez admitted that he had borrowed 200 cases of “empties” from a dealer, Eliseo P. Gabaldon, which he then converted into cash to pay for his wife’s medical expenses.

Based on the aforementioned violations and his admitted unauthorized conduct, Sanchez was administratively charged with multiple infractions under company rules.
As these violations fell under Group H offenses (which warranted dismissal for cause), Sanchez was terminated from the service on 16 November 1990 after being accorded procedural due process.

On 12 April 1993, Sanchez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ordered his reinstatement with full back wages computed from his termination date and awarded additional moral and exemplary damages.
However, on 22 November 1995, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on appeal, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, but nonetheless awarded Sanchez separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month’s salary for every year of service.
Sanchez’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 29 December 1995, prompting the filing of the petition for certiorari.

There was no basis for his dismissal as no substantial evidence demonstrated that he failed to remit or account for collections as alleged.
The stringent security measures at the plant (involving guard checks and verification procedures) made it inconceivable for him to commit the alleged fraud.
Borrowing “empties” should only be considered a violation if a formal complaint was filed by the dealer involved.
His lengthy service of twenty-three years should preclude his dismissal under the provisions of the Labor Code.

The notice of administrative charges, audit reports, and Sanchez’s own admission provided sufficient evidence that he had committed fraud by converting the borrowed “empties” into cash.
As a route salesman entrusted with both company funds and products, his actions directly constituted a breach of trust and confidence.
The dismissal was a fair and warranted consequence due to his unworthy conduct, notwithstanding the plant’s security protocols.

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion by sustaining Sanchez’s dismissal despite the Labor Arbiter’s earlier favorable decision.
Whether the evidence, particularly Sanchez’s admission and the audit findings, sufficiently supported the conclusion that he breached the trust invested in him as a route salesman.
Whether the strict security measures at the plant and the absence of a dealer’s formal complaint could mitigate or negate the established violations under the company rules.
Whether long years of service (twenty-three years) could reasonably excuse the misconduct by Sanchez in light of the clear provisions under the Labor Code regarding just causes for termination.