Title
Duty Free Philippines Services, Inc. vs. Tria
Case
G.R. No. 174809
Decision Date
Jun 27, 2012
Employee Tria dismissed for alleged involvement in cigarette pilferage; courts ruled dismissal illegal due to insufficient evidence and estoppel by DFPSI.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 174809)

Facts

On March 16, 1989, Manolito Q. Tria was employed by the Petitioner as a Warehouse Supervisor. An audit conducted on January 16, 1998, uncovered irregularities involving 1,020 packs of Marlboro cigarettes that were allegedly unaccounted for, as they had not been included in the condemnation proceedings of December 27, 1996. The audit revealed discrepancies in documentation, indicating possible attempts to conceal misconduct. During the investigation, Ed Garcia, a stockkeeper, implicated Tria, alleging he instructed Garcia to procure a vehicle for the illicit removal of the items.

Disciplinary Action and Termination

Subsequently, the Discipline Committee of DFP requested a written explanation from Tria regarding the allegations. Although Tria denied wrongdoing, asserting his instruction was for legitimate business purposes to transfer damaged merchandise, the DFPDC found him guilty of dishonesty and engaged in unjust actions regarding the alleged fake condemnation. Thus, on August 27, 1998, Tria was terminated, which prompted him to file a complaint against the Petitioner for illegal dismissal alongside claims for backwages and damages.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Findings

On May 31, 1999, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Tria, finding he had been illegally dismissed. The Arbiter ordered reinstatement and payment of backwages, denying claims for damages. The NLRC later confirmed this decision but removed the award for attorney’s fees. The Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

When the Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), it introduced a defense that there was no employer-employee relationship, asserting that DFP was the actual employer. However, the CA found this argument barred by estoppel since it was not presented earlier in the litigation process. The appellate court maintained that the dismissal was illegal based on the prior findings of the Labor Arbiter and therefore affirmed the unlawful termination of Tria.

Petition for Review

In its petition for review on certiorari, the Petitioner contended that the CA erred in assigning liability for illegal dismissal and in asserting its relationship with the Respondent. The Petitioner maintained that it acted justifiably based on the findings of dishonesty against Tria leading to his dismissal. However, the Supreme Court noted that th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.