Lapanday Foods Corp. v. Vale, Sr.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 204023. January 7, 2013.]

LAPANDAY FOODS CORPORATION represented by FLORENCIO M. OBRA, JR., petitioner, vs. ROCKY C. VALE, SR., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 January 2013 which reads as follows: aAcHCT

G.R. No. 204023 (Lapanday Foods Corporation represented by Florencio M. Obra, Jr. v. Rocky C. Vale, Sr.)

Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and delivery of finished cartons while respondent, who has been with the company since 1995, is the petitioner's Logistics/Warehouse Manager until his employment was terminated on 6 May 2008 on the ground of gross negligence resulting to loss of trust and confidence in connection with three incidences of theft of cartons by a loader, some drivers and cargo helpers, to wit:

On three separate occasions, viz., November 10, 17 and 24, 2007, which dates all fell on a Saturday, between five o'clock in the afternoon up to ten o'clock in the evening and when no managers were on duty, truckloads of finished cartons were dispatched from the warehouse of LFC purportedly for delivery to a client. However, the deliveries never reached the client. Upon investigation, LFC found that the pilferages were masterminded by a certain Roy Lacadon, a loader assigned at the box plant, who conspired with some drivers and cargo helpers. They used a falsified Authority to Haul to withdraw the cartons from the warehouse, sold the cartons in Panabo City, Davao del Norte, and divided the proceeds among themselves. LFC also found out that there were missing delivery receipts during the occasion of the pilferages and [respondent] never discovered it.

On 13 May 2008, respondent filed with the Labor Arbiter, Regional Arbitration Branch, National Labor Relations Commission, Davao City, a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioner. The Labor Arbiter found for the petitioner but ruled that respondent was entitled to his six-day salary in May 2008. Thus:

In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, dismissing the illegal dismissal and other money claims for lack of merit. Respondent LAPANDAY FOODS CORPORATION is hereby directed to pay complainant the amount of PESOS: SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTEEN and 38/100 (P7,615.38) representing salary for May 1-6, 2008, plus 10% of the total award as attorney's fees.

Complainant's claim for vacation/sick leave pay is denied for his failure to substantiate the same.

The complaint against individual respondents is likewise dismissed. Being corporate officers, they are not liable for corporate acts. 2

According to the Labor Arbiter:

As Logistics/Warehouse Manager, he is expected to closely monitor, supervise, direct, coordinate and control the overall activities of his subordinates within his area of responsibilities, the warehouse. Hence, under the doctrine of command responsibility[,] complainant is held accountable for neglect of duties and with three (3) incidents of pilferages which occurred right under his nose, so to speak, he therefore has lost the trust and confidence bestowed upon him by the company. 3

On 30 September 2009, the Fifth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter but directed petitioner to pay respondent his separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service. 4 It ratiocinated: cTCEIS

Nevertheless, . . ., there is an imperative need to temper and humanize the harshness of the penalty of dismissal imposed against the [respondent] considering that he was dismissed not for dishonesty or cause reflecting on his moral character, but for gross negligence or gross and habitual neglect of duties resulting in loss of trust and confidence. As he was validly dismissed for a cause not attended by willful and wrongful intent on his part or for cause not reflecting on his moral character, complainant should be awarded separation pay as a measure of social justice on account of his 13 years of unblemished and faithful service with the company, especially so where he was authorized by the respondents to file and prosecute the criminal case against the perpetrators responsible for the pilferages and where the amount of the company's loss is still recoverable. 5

The petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration was likewise denied for the following reasons: (1) no new matter was raised to warrant a reversal or modification of the assailed resolution; and (2) the resolution has attained its finality because the motion was filed three days after the ten-day period within which to assail the motion. 6

Before the Court of Appeals, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner assailed the award of separation pay in favor of respondent. The Court of Appeals noted petitioner's failure to file the motion for partial reconsideration with the National Labor Relations Commission within the prescribed period and stated that "even if [it] takes cognizance of the case, the same would still fail on the merits." Accordingly, it denied the petition but reduced the separation pay to 1/2 month's salary for every year of service in accordance with the ruling in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.7 It likewise denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. 8

The core issue in this instant petition is whether or not the respondent, who has been legally dismissed for gross and habitual neglect of duty, is entitled to separation pay.

We uphold the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner heavily relied on the ruling in Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations Commission, 9 where the Court declared:

In all of the foregoing situations, the Court declined to grant termination pay because the causes for dismissal recognized under Art. 282 of the Labor Code were serious or grave in nature and attended by willful or wrongful intent or they reflected adversely on the moral character of the employees. We therefore find that in addition to serious misconduct, in dismissals based on other grounds under Art. 282 like willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud or willful breach of trust, and commission of a crime against the employer or his family, separation pay should not be conceded to the dismissed employee. 10

In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 11 however, the Court clarified:

In other words, under the present jurisprudential framework, the grant of separation pay as a matter of equity to a validly dismissed employee is not contingent on whether the ground for dismissal is expressly under Article 282(a) but whether the ground relied upon is akin to serious misconduct or involves willful or wrongful intent on the part of the employee. 12

The Court of Appeals, therefore, correctly disposed of the case in the following manner:

Applying [the] ruling in the PAL case, there is now a need to determine whether the ground for dismissing [respondent] is akin to serious misconduct or involves willful or wrongful intent on the part of the employee.

xxx xxx xxx

[Respondent's] failure to detect the missing delivery receipts was indeed a dereliction of his duty as warehouse manager. However, there is no indication that his actions are perpetrated for self-interest or motivated by bad faith or wrongful intent. Noteworthy, he was not charged with the series of pilferages, but was only made accountable for having failed to prevent the same. He was even authorized by LFC to prosecute the culprits of pilferage in behalf of the corporation. At most [respondent's] failure to supervise and counter-check the delivery receipts issued by the night shift checker, can only be considered as an error of judgment considering that during his service as warehouse manager, the series of pilferages happened only on the same month and year and while [respondent] was off-duty. We also note that [respondent] cannot be faulted alone for the series of pilferages. The management, in disapproving the appointment of night shift supervisor, also failed to ensure close monitoring of the warehouse during the time when [respondent] was off-duty. Therefore, [respondent's] negligence[,] although gross, is not akin to serious misconduct. SCDaHc

Considering the circumstances surrounding [respondent's] transgression and his 13 years of unblemished employment with LFC . . . the award of separation pay is justified. It is designed not to award his negligence but to mitigate the loss of his employment. . . . 13

Finally, petitioner invoked the ruling in Philippine National Bank v. Padao.14 This, however, is not on all fours with the present case. In Padao, the Court explained:

Padao cited Llosa-Tan v. Silahis International Hotel, where the "violation" of corporate policy was held not per se fraudulent or illegal. Moreover, the said "violation" was done in compliance with the apparent lawful orders of the concerned employee's superiors. Management-sanctioned deviations in the said case did not amount to fraud or illegal activities. If anything, it merely represented flawed policy implementation.

In sharp contrast, Padao, in affixing his signature on the fraudulent reports, attested to the falsehoods contained therein. Moreover, by doing so, he repeatedly failed to perform his duties as a credit investigator.

xxx xxx xxx

It does not speak well for a person to apparently blindly follow his superiors, particularly when, with the exercise of ordinary diligence, one would be able to determine that what he or she was being ordered to do was highly irregular, if not illegal, and would, and did, work to the great disadvantage of his or her employer. 15

All considered, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals' Decision dated 8 March 2012 and Resolution dated 21 September 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 03539-MIN.

SO ORDERED. DSHcTC

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 31. Decision dated 8 March 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03539-MIN.

2. Id. at 57-58. Decision dated 29 September 2008 of the Labor Arbiter in RAB-XI-05-00433-08.

3. Id. at 56.

4. Id. at 70. Decision dated 30 September 2009 in NLRC MAC-12-010574-08.

5. Id. at 69-70.

6. Id. at 117-119. Resolution dated 26 January 2010 of the Fifth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC MAC-12-010574-08.

7. G.R. No. 123294, 20 October 2010, 634 SCRA 18, 47.

8. Id. at 44. Resolution dated 21 September 2012 of the Court of Appeals.

9. G.R. Nos. 158786 & 158789, 19 October 2007, 537 SCRA 171.

10. Id. at 223.

11. Supra note 7.

12. Id. at 41.

13. Rollo, pp. 38-40. Decision dated 8 March 2012 of the Court of Appeals.

14. G.R. Nos. 180849 and 187143, 16 November 201 1, 660 SCRA 289.

15. Id. at 303-304.