PACIWU-TUCP, LEO OMISON AND LORENZO QUINIQUITO, PETITIONERS, VS. VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., RESPONDENT.

PACIWU-TUCP versus Vallacar Transit

The Case

This is a labor case in which the Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union, together with two of its members, Leo Omison and Lorenzo Quiniquito, challenged before the Supreme Court the dismissal of the two drivers by their employer, Vallacar Transit, Incorporated, a common carrier operating passenger buses in the Visayas. The union asked the Court to reverse the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrator, which had found the dismissals valid. The case matters because it gathers into one decision three rules every labor lawyer must carry: the extraordinary diligence owed by a common carrier, the doctrine that the totality of infractions, not each offense taken alone, determines the penalty, and the rule that financial assistance as a measure of social justice cannot be granted to an employee dismissed for serious misconduct.

Procedural History

The two drivers were dismissed by their respective department heads after notices of preventive suspension and notices to investigate were issued and hearings were held. The union brought the matter through the grievance machinery under the collective bargaining agreement, and the branch manager sustained the dismissals. The union then raised the dispute before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, but no settlement was reached, so the parties agreed to submit the controversy to voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision upholding the dismissals, declaring the drivers not entitled to reinstatement, back wages, or monetary benefits, but granting Omison financial assistance equivalent to two months of his average monthly wage. The union then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, and the Court decided the case through this decision.

Facts

Vallacar Transit is a public utility engaged in transporting passengers and goods, and it had adopted company rules and regulations to govern employee conduct and to protect passengers and cargo. Both Omison and Quiniquito were regular bus drivers and bona fide members of the union. Each had a long record of infractions. Omison had been involved in earlier accidents, including one in which a six year old child pedestrian died, and the company listed eighteen offenses against him. Quiniquito likewise had eighteen violations, including bumping vehicles and an incident in which a passenger fell and was injured because he moved the bus before she had completely disembarked.

On January 9, 2012, Omison's bus sideswiped the road railings in Sipalay City, Negros Occidental. He claimed the bus had earlier suffered engine trouble, that he went home nearby while waiting for spare parts, and that he drank three bottles of beer to pass the time; when he drove the repaired bus, he said the steering wheel got stuck and he lost control. The company, however, showed that a mechanic attested the steering had no defect, and that the bus could be steered when towed. The company treated the incident as Omison's fourth accident and noted he was under the influence of liquor.

Earlier, on November 10, 2011, Quiniquito's bus collided with a tricycle coming from the opposite direction, dragging it about one hundred meters and killing both the tricycle driver and its passenger. The police investigation report stated that Quiniquito failed to manage his steering wheel and swerved into the opposite lane, hitting the tricycle which was on its correct lane. The company treated this as his fifth accident. After investigation, both drivers were dismissed: Omison for a vehicular accident coupled with driving under the influence of liquor, and Quiniquito for reckless driving resulting in damage to property and death.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed from their employment.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal was commensurate with the offenses, considering that the company rules impose only suspension where property damage is more than 50,000 pesos but not more than 100,000 pesos.
• Whether or not the mechanical defect in the steering wheel, and the tricycle driver's lack of a professional driver's license, were the proximate causes of the accidents and thus negate the drivers' liability.
• Whether or not Omison is entitled to the financial assistance awarded by the Voluntary Arbitrator.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1733 of the New Civil Code provides:

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

This is the source of the extraordinary diligence that justifies strict company rules on reckless driving by bus drivers.

Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work.

This is the just cause on which the Court anchored the dismissal of both drivers.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition lacks merit and that the dismissals were valid. On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that only suspension should be imposed. It held that the company rule imposing dismissal is reasonable and necessary because the business of a common carrier is imbued with public interest. More importantly, the Court held that the offenses should not be taken singly but in their totality. It quoted with approval the rule that the totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty, and that fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability. Thus, even if the damage to company property was only 55,000 pesos, Omison's fourth accident, aggravated by drinking, and his eighteen offenses made the last offense serious misconduct.

On the third issue, the Court found that the mechanic's affidavit belied the claim of a steering defect, and that the accident was caused by Omison's slow reaction due to the beer he drank. As for Quiniquito, the police report showed he crossed into the opposite lane, and the Court held that the absence of a driver's license is proof of a traffic violation but not conclusive proof of negligence. His fifth accident, causing death, warranted dismissal under the company rule.

On the fourth issue, the Court deleted the award of financial assistance to Omison, quoting the rule that:

Financial assistance or whatever name it is called, as a measure of social justice is allowed only in instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.

Since Omison was dismissed for serious misconduct, the award was a misplaced compassion.

Doctrine

A common carrier is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers under Article 1733 of the New Civil Code, and this justifies reasonable company rules imposing dismissal on reckless drivers whose accidents cause death or injury. Serious misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code may be established by the totality of infractions committed during employment; the offenses are not taken singly or separately but in their totality, and a series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct. The absence of a driver's license is proof of a traffic violation but not conclusive proof of negligence. Finally, financial assistance or separation pay as a measure of social justice is allowed only where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.

Disposition

The petition was denied, the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator was affirmed with modification, and the award of financial assistance in favor of Leo Omison was deleted.

Remember This

Memorize the line that it is the totality, not the compartmentalization, of company infractions that justifies dismissal. Examiners use this case to test the totality of infractions doctrine, the extraordinary diligence of common carriers, and the rule that financial assistance cannot be awarded for serious misconduct.