G.R. No. 58630. November 25, 1983
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RODOLFO REBOLOS, RESPONDENTS.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65
of the Rules of Court questioning the Decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission (First Division), dated October 12, 1981, in ROX Arbitration Case
No. 026-80 entitled “Rodolfo Rebolos vs. San Miguel Corporation (Cagayan de
Oro Coca-Cola Plant), which modified the Decision of the Labor Arbiter
granting San Miguel Corporation’s (SMC) application for clearance to terminate
the employment of Rodolfo REBOLOS, and instead reinstating him to his former
position without backwages, on the ground that the NLRC acted with grave abuse
of discretion.
REBOLOS was employed by SMC on October 19, 1969 as relief
salesman, and was promoted on October 1, 1970 as a regular salesman in the
Cagayan de Oro Coca-Cola Plant. As such
salesman he sold SMC products in the area and remitted the cash proceeds
daily. He was also authorized to drive
the company truck.
On November 23, 1976, while driving the company truck, REBOLOS
figured in a vehicular collision. A
criminal case was filed against REBOLOS for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Damage to Property. A bail bond in the
amount of P7,000.00 being needed, SMC furnished the amount in cash. REBOLOS posted the cash bond in his
name. The case was dismissed on
November 22, 1977 when the insurance company paid for the damage sustained.
Sometime in May 1978, or six months after, REBOLOS withdrew the
cash bond without informing nor remitting the amount to SMC. When a new SMC manager took over, all
company transactions were reviewed. Upon communicating with the City Treasurer’s Office of Cagayan de Oro,
SMC was advised that the cash bond had previously been withdrawn by
REBOLOS. Immediately, on August 21,
1979, management demanded the P7,000.00. On the same day, at the close of working hours, REBOLOS remitted the
amount together with his daily collections.
In an investigation conducted by the company on August 28, 1979,
REBOLOS was made to explain why he had retained the amount for one year and
three months. Replying to some of the
questions, REBOLOS stated:
“QUESTION NO. 19 – In your answer to question 18 that the
withdrawn cash bond should be deposited for safekeeping as advised by the
presiding judge, you mean to say you opened up a bank account for this purpose?
“ANSWER – No, sir, I did not open an account for that
purpose. Instead, it was kept for
safekeeping with our family funds.
“QUESTION NO. 20 – What do you mean by ‘safekeeping with our
family fund’? Does it mean that the
bond was kept in your residence or in a bank account?
“ANSWER – The question is too personal, I choose to
remain silent. At any rate, the cash
bond was returned intact to the cashier’s office immediately after it was
ordered returned.
x x x x
x x x x x
“QUESTION NO. 27 – I have no more questions to ask. Do you have anything more to say?
“ANSWER – Yes, sir. For your information, the cash bond was safely deposited & intact
& was never used by me. Also, the
cash bond was returned to the Company immediately after it was ordered to be
returned. I am personally responsible
and accountable for the cash bond because it was entrusted to me
by the Company & therefore, I have to keep it
safely until it is returned. I also
signed three (3) documents: two from
the Company & one from Mr. Horilleno, also, I do not use any money that
does not belong to me. I never used
it. I have nothing more to say.”[1]
(Emphasis supplied)
In an Inter-office Memo from the SMC Manila Office, the Personnel
& Administrative Department decided that REBOLOS should be separated from
the service for having betrayed the trust and confidence reposed on him by
SMC. REBOLOS was placed under
preventive suspension effective on December 1, 1979 pending clearance to
terminate his services from the Ministry of Labor on the ground of
misappropriation of company funds and breach of trust aid confidence. REBOLOS received the notice of termination
on November 19, 1979.
On November 28, 1979, REBOLOS filed a Complaint for illegal
dismissal with Regional Office No. X, Ministry of Labor, alleging bias against
him by the new SMC Manager and that his record of efficiency with SMC is very
satisfactory. The complainant
submitted a position paper and a reply thereto was filed by SMC. REBOLOS was unsuccessful at this level. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint
and granted SMC’s application for clearance to terminate due to breach of
trust and confidence by REBOLOS. On
appeal by REBOLOS, the NLRC, although noting that REBOLOS had unreasonably kept
in his possession the sum of P7,000.00 for one year and four months and had not
sufficiently or satisfactorily explained the delay in returning the money,
ordered his reinstatement without backwages, stating:
“Be that as it may, considering that complainant has been in
the service of the respondent company for more than nine (9) years and the
incident herein is an isolated one, not involving the regular work of the
complainant, we believe the penalty of dismissal is too severe under the
circumstances. We hereby rule that the
period of time during which the complainant was out of work (is) sufficient
penalty for the offense he has committed.”[2]
Hence, this petition filed by SMC, predicated on the following
issues:
“I
“The National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its
discretion and acted in excess of its jurisdiction in ordering the
reinstatement of private respondent in spite of the findings that the latter
misappropriated company funds and breached the trust and confidence reposed
upon him by his employer.
“II
“The National Labor Relations Commission committed a grave
abuse of discretion in arbitrarily holding that the termination of the services
of private respondent is too severe because such conclusion is contrary to law
and prevailing jurisprudence.”[3]
Petitioner maintains that the act committed by REBOLOS is
misappropriation of company funds and constitutes serious breach of trust for
which reason it has lost confidence in him, specially considering the sensitive
position he holds, and that a reinstatement would negatively affect the morale
and discipline of the other employees.
The position of REBOLOS, on the other hand, is that the
transaction was a loan, which amount he borrowed to enable him to post bail;
that he withdrew the cash bond only in May, 1978 after having been told by a
clerk of the Court that the bond may be forfeited if not withdrawn; that he had
acted in good faith and that the amount was paid immediately upon demand.
In our Resolution of April 4, 1982, we resolved to give due
course and required the submission of memoranda by the parties, which they have
complied with.
The amount of P7,000.00, which the private respondent failed to
return for an unreasonable length of time, is not a loan. Two SMC vouchers referred to the
disbursement as “suspense account” “to amount of Cash Bond to
bail out Salesman Rebolos re vehicular Accident involving Plant Route Truck CB
#4”. Moreover, an essential
element in a loan is that a person who receives the money acquires ownership
thereof and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount.[4]
That essential element of ownership is not present in this case. Further, in private respondent’s answer
during the investigation conducted by SMC, it is evident that the former did
not consider the amount as a loan but as a cash bond “entrusted to me by
the company”.[5]
As correctly observed by the Labor Arbiter:
“After the thorough evaluation of the respective contentions
of the parties and the evidence adduced in support thereof, we find that the
amount of P7,000.00 is not a loan to complainant rather it is a company cash
bond put up in the name of complainant to bail him out. This is evidenced by the two vouchers. (annexes ‘A’ & ‘B’ – respondent position
paper) the first reads: x x x It can be
readily gleaned from those aforequoted vouchers that the payee is respondent
(SMC) itself. Had it been a direct
loan, it could have been reflected in the vouchers by making the withdrawal for
complainants’ account.”[6]
In other words, the amount of P7,000.00 was not a loan but a
company cash bond entrusted to REBOLOS for the sole purpose of bailing him out
in a case arising from the performance of his work as a travelling salesman of
SMC and which the latter felt obliged to furnish. Private respondent acknowledged this, when he stated: “Yes, sir, it was the Company cash bond
to be deposited personally in my name.”[7]
Nor do we find that there has been any misappropriation in the
legal sense. There is no evidence that
REBOLOS actually intended to convert or divert the amount for his own personal
use or for some other person, which is an essential element of
misappropriation.[8]
In fact, REBOLOS remitted the amount on the same day it was demanded.
However, we find that there was, indeed, breach of trust and
confidence by REBOLOS. It was incumbent
upon him to have returned the amount of P7,000.00 upon withdrawal knowing that
it constituted company funds put up on his behalf only because he was an
employee and was driving a company vehicle at the time of the accident. He was accountable for those funds. Instead, he clung to the amount for the long
period of one year and three months for reasons of his own. The fact that he returned the amount to SMC
upon demand does not exculpate nor mitigate the delay. He could give no satisfactory explanation
for that delay except to state that he had kept it for safekeeping with family
funds and had never used it.[9] He
had violated the company regulation requiring immediate remittance of funds or
collections held by them for and on behalf of the company. Knowing his obligations, demand by SMC
should not have been necessary. That
SMC itself had not attended to the withdrawal of the cash bond should not be
of any significance. It had all the
right to expect that as a salesman of the company, REBOLOS would live up to the
trust and confidence reposed on him.
In sum, REBOLOS’ act in withdrawing the cash bond and retaining
the same for one year and three months and merging it with his family funds
without justifiable reason constitutes willful breach of the trust reposed on
him, and under Article 283 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended,[10]
is a just cause for termination of employment. There is ample reason for SMC to distrust him. The case of Galsim vs. PNB[11] has
also laid down the guideline that “reinstatement under the circumstances
is neither sound nor just in principle. It is irreconcilable with trust and confidence.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission, dated October 12, 1981, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
Decision of the Labor Arbiter ordering the dismissal of private respondent’s
complaint for illegal dismissal is hereby reinstated.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1]
Annex “D”, Petition, pp. 42-43, Rollo.
[2]
Annex “G”, p. 2, p. 71, ibid.
[3]
p. 5, ibid.
[4]
Article 1953, Civil Code.
[5]
supra
[6]
p. 53, Rollo.
[7]
Investigation Report, p. 2, Rollo, p. 41.
[8]
United States vs. Morales, 15 Phil. 236 (1910); Concepcion vs. People
of the Philippines, 74 Phil. 63 (1942).
[9]
Answers to Qs. 19 and 27, Investigation Report, Annex “D”,
Petitioner’s Manifestation before Ministry of Labor, pp. 42 & 43, Rollo.
[10]
“ART. 283. Termination by
employer. – An employer may terminate
an employment for any of the following just causes:
x x x x x x
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;”
x x x x x x
[11]
29 SCRA 293 (1969).