Title
Supreme Court
Sanchez vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 124348
Decision Date
Aug 19, 1999
Employee dismissed for borrowing and converting company "empties" into cash, breaching trust; SC upheld dismissal but granted separation pay for 23 years of service.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124348)

Allegations of Misconduct

The audit revealed discrepancies in Sanchez's transactions, specifically the padding of 200 cases of "empties" during the "load in" process, leading to an unaccounted excess valued at P13,200.00. Additionally, it was found that 331 cases of "empties," worth P22,252.00, were improperly recorded on his load sheet. As a result, he was charged with several violations, including failure to remit collections and borrowing company property without proper authorization.

Admission of Policy Violation

In a letter dated July 18, 1990, Sanchez acknowledged that he borrowed 200 cases of "empties" from a dealer to cover medical expenses for his wife. This admission, combined with the audit findings, formed the basis for the administrative charges against him. Following the completion of procedural due process, he was terminated from his employment on November 16, 1990.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by Sanchez

On April 12, 1993, Sanchez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PEPSI-COLA. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Sanchez, ordering his reinstatement with back wages and additional damages. The Arbiter concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations against him, emphasizing that the charges lacked the necessary substantiation.

NLRC Ruling and Appeal

On November 22, 1995, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing Sanchez’s complaint for lack of merit, but awarded him separation pay. The NLRC found that the grounds for his dismissal were warranted due to the breach of trust represented by his admission and actions.

Contentions of Sanchez

Sanchez argued that his dismissal was unjustified, citing a lack of evidence to substantiate the company’s claims. He emphasized the stringent security measures in place at the company’s plant, which he contended made it implausible for him to have committed the alleged violations without detection. Moreover, he contended that his borrowing of "empties" could only be deemed a violation if a formal complaint was lodged by the dealer, which had not occurred.

Defense by PEPSI-COLA

Conversely, PEPSI-COLA maintained that Sanchez's actions constituted a breach of trust, justifying his dismissal. The company pointed to his admission as critical evidence of his misconduct, asserting that his failure to properly account for sales revenue provided a reasonable basis for management to lose trust in him. They reinforced that employees in positions of responsibility must abide by strict accountability standards given their access to significant company assets.

Legal Principles on Termination

The court acknowledged that the loss of trust and confidence is a

...continue reading

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