Title
Raza vs. Daikoku Electronics Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 188464
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2015
Driver dismissed for dishonesty after repeatedly taking company vehicle home without permission, lying about it; Supreme Court upheld termination as valid.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 201655)

Factual Background

The incident triggering Raza's dismissal occurred on July 21, 2003, when he allegedly took the company vehicle home without permission after dropping Ono off at his condominium in Makati City. Raza initially lied to Ono about the vehicle's location, claiming he parked it incorrectly at the condominium's parking area. This behavior led to the issuance of a Notice of Violation on July 24, 2003. Following Raza's admission of the infraction and the explanation that he had received prior permission from Ono to use the vehicle at times, an investigation committee was formed. They recommended a twelve-day suspension, which was ultimately overruled by the company, leading to Raza's termination on August 7, 2003.

Procedural History

Raza then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was initially ruled in his favor by Labor Arbiter Lita V. Alibut, who deemed his dismissal unlawful. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later dismissed the employer's appeal for procedural non-compliance but subsequently reinstated it, eventually ruling against Raza, stating that his actions constituted just cause for dismissal. This decision found further support from the Court of Appeals, which upheld the NLRC's ruling.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issues involved whether the NLRC properly addressed the procedural aspects of the respondents' motion for reconsideration and whether Raza's actions warranted the penalty of dismissal under the standards of serious misconduct defined in the Labor Code. Raza contended these points in seeking to overturn the lower decisions.

Findings on Procedural Matters

Raza argued that the respondents’ motion for reconsideration to the NLRC was filed out of time. However, the Court ruled that such procedural matters, including the mailing date of the motion, appeared to be timely based on evidence presented, including post office stamps and registry receipts. The Court underscored that findings of fact are generally not subject to review, affirming that the NLRC's determination of procedural timeliness was correct.

Substantive Analysis of Dismissal

The crux of the substantive issue revolved around Raza’s alleged infractions of company policy regarding the unauthorized use of the vehicle and deceit towards Ono. The Court reiterated that an employer must demonstrate just cause for termination and that Raza's recurrent unauthorized use of the vehicle, combined with his dishonesty regarding it, constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal.

Legal Principles on Misconduct

The Labor Code outlines that serious misconduct involves an employee's improper conduct that undermines his fitness to remain in employment. The Court concluded that the recu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.