Title
Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 100686
Decision Date
Aug 15, 1995
A contractual electrician, dismissed twice by Pepsi Cola, challenged his termination. The Supreme Court ruled his second dismissal illegal, holding the successor company liable for reinstatement or separation pay, affirming NLRC's decision.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100686)

Applicable Law and Jurisdiction

This case falls under the purview of the Labor Code of the Philippines and relevant constitutional provisions that govern due process and labor relations in the workplace. Given that the decision was rendered in 1995, the applicable legal framework is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which emphasizes the protection of labor and the rights of employees against arbitrary dismissal.

Background of the Case

The dispute commenced when Tertuliano P. Yute was terminated from his employment on December 15, 1988, by PCD, citing alleged abandonment of work. Subsequently, Yute filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, moral damages, and attorney's fees before the NLRC. Following failed attempts at amicable settlement, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Yute, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering PCD to reinstate him, along with the payment of back wages and attorney’s fees.

Labor Arbiter's Decision and Appeal

On May 22, 1989, Labor Arbiter Solamo ruled that Yute's dismissal was illegal, mandating his reinstatement with back wages. PCD, however, appealed the decision to the NLRC and reinstated Yute on May 22, 1989. Yet, on July 25, 1989, PCD ceased salary payments on the grounds that it had sold its business interests to Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PCPPI). Yute filed for a writ of execution concerning unpaid salaries, leading to further legal complications.

Issues Raised by PCPPI and NLRC's Resolution

PCPPI requested that the NLRC recognize its separate legal identity from PCD and argued that they should not be held liable for the previous dismissal, claiming that the change in ownership relieved them of such obligations. However, the NLRC maintained that the new company remained accountable for liabilities incurred by its predecessor, particularly concerning Yute's illegal dismissal.

Final Rulings by the NLRC and the Supreme Court

Eventually, the NLRC dismissed PCD's appeal, upholding the Labor Arbiter's decision and ordering PCD and PCPPI to reinstate Yute and compensate him accordingly. PCD filed a petition for certiorari, asserting that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion by not acknowledging the second dismissal and the fundamental separation between the two corporate entities.

Examination of Due Process

The Supreme Court confirmed that Yute was afforded due process during his initial dismissal, as he was given opportunities to explain his absences prior to termination. However, it noted that the penalty of dismissal was excessively harsh given Yute's medical issues during the time of his absence. The court acknowledged that while the first dismissal had due process, the second dismissal after the sale of business interests raised questions of accountability and proper procedure.

Conclusion

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.