**Facts:**
1. Richard N. Rivera was employed by Genesis Transport Service, Inc. (Genesis) starting in June 2002 as a bus conductor on the Cubao-Baler, Aurora route.
2. As part of his employment, Rivera was required to post a cash bond of ₱6,000.00.
3. On June 10, 2010, Rivera received a memorandum requiring him to explain within 24 hours why he underreported and remitted ₱198.00 instead of the correct amount of ₱394.00 for bus ticket receipts.
4. Rivera responded, claiming it was an honest mistake he couldn’t correct because the bus encountered mechanical problems.
5. Genesis’ Inspector, Arnel Villaseran, detailed the discrepancy in an “Irregularity Report” after conducting a “man to man” inspection on May 25, 2010, where Bus No. 1820 passengers transferred to Bus No. 8286 in San Fernando, Pampanga.
6. The amount on Ticket No. 723374 VA was corrected to ₱394.00, but the perforated original amount was ₱198.00. The passenger confirmed paying ₱500.00 to Rivera, receiving ₱106.00 in change.
7. Verification with Genesis’ Ticket Section confirmed Rivera surrendered the duplicate ticket indicating ₱198.00 and remitted the same amount.
8. On July 20, 2010, Genesis notified Rivera of the hearing scheduled for July 23, 2010.
9. Despite his explanations, Rivera’s services were terminated on July 30, 2010.
10. Rivera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip dismissed the complaint on June 26, 2012, siding with Genesis.
11. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on February 28, 2013, and denied Rivera’s motion for reconsideration on April 30, 2013.
12. Rivera filed a Rule 65 Petition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on July 8, 2014, and denied the motion for reconsideration on November 20, 2014.
**Issues:**
1. Whether Rivera’s termination was for just cause.
2. Whether Riza A. Moises, as the President and General Manager of Genesis, has personal liability.
**Court’s Decision:**
– **Issue One: Just Cause for Termination**
– The Supreme Court held that a single instance of a discrepancy amounting to ₱196.00 does not constitute serious misconduct justifying termination of employment. The discrepancy was not proven to be gross negligence, ill-motivated, or part of a pattern of similar behavior. The Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, concluding that Rivera’s termination was without just cause and thus, illegal. Consequently, Rivera was awarded full back wages and separation pay.
– **Issue Two: Personal Liability of Riza A. Moises**
– The Court ruled there was no evidence of bad faith or malice on the part of Riza A. Moises in the termination process. Underlining the principle of corporate separateness, it found no basis for her personal liability in Rivera’s illegal termination. The case against her was dismissed.
**Doctrine:**
– **Serious Misconduct and Trust Breach**
– Serious misconduct must be sufficiently grave to warrant termination. It is not enough for misconduct to be improper or wrongful; it must relate directly to job performance and be severe enough to demonstrate the employee’s unfitness to continue working.
– Willful breach of trust, while valid grounds for termination, must be based on substantial and concrete evidence. Single isolated incidents without further evidence of pattern or significant impact do not justify loss of trust and attendant termination.
**Class Notes:**
– **Key Elements:**
– **Serious Misconduct:** Should be severe, work-related, and indicate unfitness.
– **Citation:** Yabut v. Manila Electric Co., 679 Phil. 97 (2012)
– **Breach of Trust:** Requires positions of trust and a substantial act to justify it.
– **Citation:** Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope, G.R. No. 192826, February 27, 2013.
– **Wrongful Termination:** Involves lack of just cause and due process.
– **Relevant Law:** Labor Code Article 282
– **Statutory Provisions:**
– **Security of Tenure:** Termination only for just cause or authorized by law.
– **Citation:** Labor Code, Article 280
– **Application:** A single error in ticket remittance does not automatically constitute grounds for serious misconduct or breach of trust; a broader context and pattern is required.
**Historical Background:**
– **Labor Rights Evolution:**
– Since the 1987 Constitution, the role of labor laws has been heavily focused on protecting workers’ rights, reflecting the social justice orientation to protect employment and prevent arbitrary deprivation of livelihood. The case emphasizes the importance of these principles being interpreted with a bias towards labor security and fairness, balancing corporate rights and workers’ welfare.
Leave a Reply