SAN FERNANDO COCA-COLA RANK & FILE UNION (SACURO) AND BERNALIN SONGCO, PETITIONERS, VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. (CCBPI), MATILDE B. ORTIZ, CRISTINA REYES, AND NATIONAL L…

San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank and File Union versus Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines

The Case

This is a labor case about a dismissed worker who admitted taking his employer's property. The San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank and File Union, together with Bernalin Songco, brought the action against Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Incorporated and two of its officers, Matilde Ortiz and Cristina Reyes. Songco, a former Assistant Syrupman at the company's San Fernando plant in Pampanga, was terminated after a security guard found a bag of white sugar in his car as he was leaving the premises. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The case matters because it tests the boundary between a worker's sympathy-arousing circumstances — a long record of service, financial distress, immediate admission of fault, and a stolen item of small value — and the employer's right to dismiss an employee who holds a position of trust and confidence. It is a classic examination of willful breach of trust under the Labor Code.

Procedural History

Songco filed his complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. On 13 June 2011, Labor Arbiter Leandro Jose ruled in his favor, finding that the company failed to prove a just cause because it did not present its 2010 Employee Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations, the so-called Red Book, and because dismissal was too severe a penalty. The company appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. In a Resolution dated 29 September 2011, the Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter and held that Songco was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence under Article 282, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code. Songco moved for reconsideration, but the Commission denied it for lack of merit. Songco and the union then came to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assigning grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Commission.

Facts

Songco worked as an Assistant Syrupman at the company's San Fernando plant. His duties included hauling and dumping sugar, withdrawing concentrates from the cold room, and rinsing concentrate drums. Because of this work, he had access to the bodega where sugar and other raw materials were stored.

On 13 June 2010, as Songco was leaving the premises, security guard Jesus Cagampang inspected outgoing vehicles and found a blue bag at the back seat of Songco's car. The bag contained a plastic bag of white sugar weighing 5.25 kilos. When asked, Songco first said "wala yan," trying to dissuade the guard from checking. He could not present a gate pass. The bag was confiscated and the incident was reported. At the security office, Songco admitted the offense, and the guard submitted an incident report.

The company issued a Notice to Explain. Songco answered and admitted taking the sugar because of his dire need of money. An investigation followed, attended by company officers and union officers, where Songco reiterated his admission. On 2 August 2010, the company served a Notice of Termination for theft or unauthorized taking of company property. The union president appealed, but the appeal was denied. Songco then filed his complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issues

• Whether or not Songco was terminated for a just and valid cause, specifically willful breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him by his employer.
• Whether or not the company's failure to present its 2010 Red Book, the mitigating circumstances Songco invoked, and the Commission's consideration of his past infractions affect the validity of his dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

Article 282 of the Labor Code, as quoted and applied by the Court through its paragraph (c), provides:

An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

Paragraph (c) is the provision on which the dismissal rests, and the Court's whole analysis turns on whether Songco's act amounted to a willful breach of trust.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Songco was validly dismissed. It was undisputed that he attempted to bring out 5.25 kilos of white sugar belonging to the company without consent or authority, and that he would have succeeded had the guard not caught him. His position as Assistant Syrupman was one of trust and confidence, because he was charged with the handling, care, and protection of his employer's property. The unauthorized taking was a willful breach of that trust, a just cause under Article 282, paragraph (c). The Court explained that a breach is willful when it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. The act must be work-related and must show that the employee is unfit to continue working for the employer. Stealing the very material he used in syrup preparation demonstrated his unworthiness to remain employed.

On the second issue, the Court rejected each of Songco's arguments. His immediate admission did not assure him of continued employment, because employers have the right to discipline their employees as part of their management prerogative, and the company's decision was within that prerogative since it violated neither substantive nor procedural due process. His financial trouble gave him no license to steal, and the Court quoted its own exhortation that social justice and equity are not magical formulas to erase the unjust acts committed by the employee against his employer. The minimal value of the stolen sugar was immaterial, because the essence of the offense is the betrayal of trust. His twenty-six years of service could not erase the gravity of the betrayal, and the Court quoted its ruling that length of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. Finally, the Court held that the Commission did not err in considering his past infractions, because the Notice of Termination showed he was dismissed solely on the ground of theft, and regardless of those infractions the company had sufficient legal ground to terminate him.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, willful breach of the trust reposed in an employee under Article 282, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is a just cause for dismissal. Second, the breach is willful when it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. Third, loss of confidence as a ground rests on the fact that the employee holds a position of responsibility, trust, and confidence, or is entrusted with delicate matters such as the handling, care, and protection of the employer's property. Fourth, the act must be work-related and must show that the employee is unfit to continue working for the employer. Fifth, the small value of the stolen property, the employee's length of service, his immediate admission of fault, and his financial distress do not erase the betrayal of trust, and the employer's decision to dismiss, made within its management prerogative and without violating due process, will not be disturbed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, upheld the Commission's finding that Songco was validly dismissed, and left the termination standing.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the minimal value of the stolen object is immaterial, because the betrayal of the trust reposed in the employee is the essence of the offense. Examiners use this case to test willful breach of trust under Article 282, paragraph (c), and to ask whether length of service, financial distress, or a small amount stolen can soften a dismissal for stealing from the employer.