Title
JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo
Case
G.R. No. 214294
Decision Date
Sep 30, 2020
Drivers/helpers dismissed for unauthorized sales of broilers and crates; valid dismissal for cause but procedural due process violated, entitling them to nominal damages and salary differentials.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214294)

Petitioner

JR Hauling Services engaged respondents to transport live broilers from farms in Pangasinan, Tarlac, Batangas, Bulacan, Zambales, or La Union to processing plants in Hermosa, Bataan, issuing job orders and paying P300.00 per trip (two trips per day expected).

Respondents

Former drivers/helpers who claim they averaged one trip per day (P300.00), were not paid 13th month pay, holiday/rest-day premiums, or Service Incentive Leave (SIL) pay, and were summarily dismissed on April 3, 2011 without notice or hearing.

Key Dates

• Employment commenced between October 2003 and August 2010
• Labor Arbiter Decision: December 9, 2011
• NLRC Decision: August 28, 2012; Resolution denying reconsideration: November 15, 2012
• Court of Appeals Decision: September 5, 2014
• Supreme Court Decision: September 30, 2020

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (labor rights)
• Labor Code of the Philippines, Article 297 (serious misconduct; breach of trust; commission of crime)
• NLRC Rules of Procedure (suppl. by Rules of Court Rule 8, Sec. 11)
• Wage Order No. RBIII-15 (minimum wage P308/day)

Factual Predicate

Respondents hauled broilers per job orders, replaced dead birds with extras from farms, and allegedly incurred shortages of 371 and 377 broilers in February and March 2011. Petitioners discovered unauthorized sales of excess broilers and broiler crates in Concepcion, Tarlac, and relied on an unsigned summary of shortages and notarized affidavits from manager, helpers, and co-employees to justify dismissal for serious misconduct, fraud, and breach of trust.

Labor Arbiter Ruling

The Labor Arbiter found dismissal illegal for lack of just cause and procedural due process: the summary of shortages was unauthenticated; affidavits were hearsay; respondents were field personnel not entitled to certain statutory benefits; ordered reinstatement, backwages, salary differentials, and attorney’s fees.

NLRC Ruling

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, holding that the affidavits (admissions against interest) and documentary evidence adequately proved loss of trust and confidence as just cause under Article 297(c). It also deemed respondents estopped from invoking due process, dismissed their complaint, and denied monetary claims.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals granted certiorari, set aside the NLRC Decision for lack of substantial evidence: the unauthenticated summary and uncorroborated affidavits failed to show respondents’ culpability; reinstated the Labor Arbiter Decision ordering reinstatement and backwages.

Issues

  1. Whether substantial evidence supported respondents’ dismissal for just cause.
  2. Whether respondents were entitled to salary differentials.
  3. Whether procedural due process in dismissal was observed.

Standard of Review and Evidentiary Threshold

The Supreme Court may reconcile conflicting findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA. In labor cases, the required quantum is substantial evidence—relevant evidence a reasonable mind accepts to support a conclusion. Technical rules on hearsay do not strictly apply; notarized affidavits enjoy presumptions of regularity and due execution unless rebutted by clear, convincing proof.

Supreme Court Analysis – Just Cause

• The unsigned, uncorroborated summary of shortages lacked authenticity and failed to link respondents to the missing broilers.
• Notarized affidavits of co-employees, manager, and helpers sufficiently established respondents’ participation in unauthorized sales of excess broilers and crates—acts of dishonesty, breach of trust, and serious misconduct.
• Drivers/helpers, though not supervisory, handled employer property and were entrusted with its safe delivery; their misconduct breached the trust essential to their work.
• Dismissal was justified under Article 297(a), (c), and (d) of the Labor Code.

Supreme Court Analysis – Procedural Due Process

• Petitioners conceded no w



...continue reading

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