Title
Sagales vs. Rustan's Commercial Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 166554
Decision Date
Nov 27, 2008
A long-serving Chief Cook was dismissed for alleged theft of P50 squid heads. Despite supervisory role, SC ruled dismissal too harsh, awarding separation pay and backwages due to minor offense and 31 years of unblemished service.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232968)

Dismissal Incident and Initial Proceedings

On June 18, 2001, Sagales was apprehended by security while attempting to leave the supermarket with a plastic bag containing 1.335 kilos of squid heads. He failed to provide a purchase receipt at the time of the incident, which led to his detention and subsequent questioning by authorities. Although he claimed he had purchased the squid heads, the case was initially left unresolved after an inquest ruled the evidence insufficient for prosecution due to a lack of proof regarding his alleged intent to steal.

Company Response and Administrative Actions

Despite the dismissal of the criminal complaint, Rustan's Commercial Corporation still considered Sagales's actions a breach of company policy. He was placed under preventive suspension and subsequently dismissed after a formal investigation upheld the company's initial findings. Sagales contested his termination, asserting illegal dismissal and seeking unpaid wages, damages, and other entitlements.

Lower Tribunal Decisions

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Sagales's complaint for lack of merit, categorizing him as a supervisory employee whose position warranted a higher standard of conduct. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) overturned the Labor Arbiter's decision, declaring the dismissal illegal, citing that Sagales was a rank-and-file employee and the evidence insufficient to establish the crime of theft.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Rustan's appealed the NLRC's decision, leading to the Court of Appeals reversing the NLRC's ruling. The appellate court found that Sagales held a supervisory role, which justified the trust and confidence imposed upon employees of such positions. It ruled that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated a loss of trust, affirming the company's right to dismiss him. It further denied any additional claims for damages based on the context of his dismissal involving a theft of company property.

Supreme Court Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court evaluated a series of issues including whether Sagales's position was indeed supervisory and if sufficient evidence existed to justify his dismissal. The Court reaffirmed that the nature of the job impacts the standards for termination, and held that Sagales's role as Chief Cook fell within supervisory parameters requiring a higher standard of responsibility.

The Court upheld that although the dismissal procedure followed by the company was justified, the penalty of termination was excessively harsh given the circumstances. Recognizing Sagales's lengthy tenure, clean service record, and the negli

...continue reading

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