G.R. No. 63227. March 15, 1984
A. MARQUEZ, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DEPUTY MINISTER VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR. AND CECILIO APOLINARIO, RESPONDENTS.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
dated July 14, 1981 and January 11, 1983 sustaining the complaint of
Cecilio Apolinario for illegal dismissal against petitioner A. Marquez,
Inc. filed before the Office of the Regional Director, Ministry of
Labor, Region IX, City of Zamboanga.
Cecilio Apolinario had been employed as driver of a cargo truck of
petitioner A. Marquez, Inc. working almost daily for more than three
years with a daily wage of P12.00 when on April 25, 1978, he was
allegedly illegally dismissed by his employer. In his complaint, Mr.
Apolinario alleged the following circumstances which led to his illegal
dismissal:
xxx xxx xxx
“3. That on April 25, 1978 without sufficient cause, respondent
did not allow complainant to drive the cargo truck he used to drive,
instead gave to another driver, despite plea from complainant to drive;“4. That on the following day, complainant came to see the manager
but the latter refused, alleging that he could not drive owing to his
denial before the police of the alleged theft of 3 empty shells for
Coke.”xxx xxx xxx
On October 3, 1978, the complaint was dismissed because of the failure
of Mr. Apolinario to appear at the hearing scheduled on August 1, 1978.
Upon Apolinario’s motion for reconsideration, the dismissal order was
set aside and the complaint reinstated. The complaint was then referred
to a hearing officer for investigation.
At the hearing on the merits of the complaint, Apolinario presented the
following arguments to subsÂtantiate his stand that he was illegally
dismissed by the petitioner:
“x x x first, respondent had not filed any application for
clearance to terÂminate his services; second, no investÂigation was ever
conducted by respondent; and third, the alleged theft of empty coke
shells cannot be a ground for dismisÂsal. He argued that the letter of
the accountant of the Zamboanga Coca-Cola plant used as basis for his
dismissal, should not have been given weight by respondent, especially
in view of his three years of services. He maintained that anybody
could have placed the coke shells under the chassis of the truck he was
driving, either jokingly or intentionally. He contended further that
the absence of any intent on his part to steal is evident from the
circumstances of the case. He explained that the Coca-Cola plant is
several kilometers away from the wharf, his destinÂation point at the
time he was driving, and that if he really had the intention to steal
the empty shells, he could have hidden them along the way. Moreover, he
pointed out that the place where the empty shells were unloaded was
full of workers at the time.”
On the other hand, the petitioner whose main business was the hauling of
empty Coca-Cola bottles from the Zamboanga City wharf to the Coca-Cola
Plant at Tetuan, Zamboanga City denied the illegal dismisÂsal charge.
The petitioner maintained that its refusal to let Apolinario drive its
cargo truck was due to the ban imposed against him by the San Miguel
Corporation to enter the Coca-Cola Plant premises. According to the
petitioner, Apolinario was found to have been guilty by the Coca-Cola
management of theft consisting of one loose PS shells and two loose RS
shells or cases of empty coke bottles as a result of which the
accountant of the Zamboanga Coca-Cola Plant wrote a letter to the
petitioner informing it that Mr. Apolinario was banned from entering the
Coca-Cola Plant premises because of the misdemeanor.
On the basis of the “Report and Recommendation” submitted by the hearing
officer, the Regional Director in an Order dated January 26, 1978
dismissed the complaint based on the following grounds: “(1) that
complainant after he was not allowed to drive, voluntarily left his
employment, and seek (sic) employment with the Zamboanga Stevedores and
Dockhandlers Corporation.” The said order was appealed by Mr. Apolinario
to the Minister of Labor. In an Order dated July 14, 1981, Deputy
Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr. acting in behalf of the Minister of Labor
set aside the questioned order and declared that the petitioner was
guilty of illegal dismissal vis-a-vis Apolinario. Hence, Armando
Marquez, the manager of the petitioner company was directed “to
immediately reinstate Apolinario x x x in his former position with full
backwages, without loss of seniority rights and with payment to him of
all other applicable benefits.”
On a motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner and in view of
the certification by the assistant city treasurer of Zamboanga City that
petitioner A. Marquez, Inc. managed by Armando Marquez had “retired”
its business license since January 3, 1980, the Deputy Minister issued
an Order dated January 11, 1983 modifying the July 14, 1981 Order as
follows:
“x x xThat respondent grant separation pay to complainant
equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service; and (2) that
respondent pay the backwages of the complainant from the time he was
dismissed on April 25, 1978 as found in the Order of this Office dated
July 14, 1981 until January 3, 1980 when respondent’s business license
was retired.”
The Deputy Minister of Labor’s ruling was due to the petitioner’s
failure to file the required clearance requirement from the Ministry of
Labor compounded by the petitioner’s failure to personally investigate
the theft charge against Mr. Apolinario by the San Miguel Corporation.
Hence, the Deputy Minister stated:
“We rule for complainant. It is clear that he was dismissed
without the requisite clearance. This is impliedly admitted by
respondent when it simply did not allow complainant to drive anymore on
the basis merely of the letter of Coca-Cola plant’s accountant. But
prescinding from the procedural aspect of the case, we do not see any
justification for complainant’s dismissal. While it is true that there
was a report on complainant’s admission of guilt in an attempted theft
of Coca-Cola shells and his subsequent banning from the premises of the
bottling company, that report alone is not a sufficient basis for his
outright dismissal, effectÂed quite effectively through respondent’s
refusal to give him work. He should have been investigated first. We
are not convinced of complainant’s culpability in so serious a charge as
attempted theft, especially when all that we have at hand is the
accountant’s generalized report on the incident. We find respondent to
have acted on the report precipitately and, worse, to have denied
complainant the elementary courtesy of an investigation.”
We are constrained to set aside the orders of the respondent Ministry.
The orders ignore the circumstances of the situation and penalize the
employer for acts over which it has no control. The petitioner’s
assigning another driver to the cargo truck bound for the Coca-Cola
Plant premises instead of Mr. Apolinario was brought about by the San
Miguel Corporation ban against Mr. Apolinario prohibiting him from
entering the Coca-Cola Plant premises. In the face of such a
prohibition, the petitioner could not allow Mr. Apolinario to drive its
cargo truck because it would not have been allowed to enter the
Coca-Cola Plant. As the Regional Director stated in his order dated
January 26, 1978 “x x x It would be a stupid gesture for respondent to
let complainant continue handling when he is banned from entering the
Plant Compound.”
The Deputy Minister’s suggestion for a personal investigation by the
petitioner as regards the theft charge against Apolinario is impractical
under the circumstances. It would have served no purpose at all
vis-a-vis the ban imposed on Apolinario. On the other hand, Mr. Marquez
might have lost his entire business with the Coca-Cola Plant. A
finding of the petitioner that Apolinario was not guilty as charged
would not be binding on the San Miguel Corporation since Apolinario was
not an employee of San Miguel Corporation. MoreÂover, if he initiated
the suggested investigation, the petitioner could have prejudiced its
hauling contract and the jobs of all other drivers for as far as San
Miguel Corporation was concerned, Mr. Apolinario had already been
investigated and found guilty of theft as a result of which he was
banned from entering the Coca-Cola Plant. The fact that the petitioner
closed its business during the pendency of this case shows it could not
have stood up against the giant San Miguel Corporation. It would have
been business suicide for the petitioner to initiate the suggested
investigation.
In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks v. The National Labor Relations Commission, et al. (117 SCRA 544), we ruled:
“A careful consideration of the records before Us shows that
insofar as respondents Amado Mariano, Ricardo Pasco, Teofilo de Leon,
and Zosimo Sacdalan are concerned, the petitioner has been made
accountable for a predicament where it had no particiÂpation and to
answer for circumstances over which it had no control. Justice,
fairness, and due process dictate that the questioned decision be
modified.xxx xxx xxx
“It was asking too much to have Violago produce the results of a
formal investigation by Petrophil that the private respondents were
found guilty of cheating in receiving oil products from Petrophil depots
and delivering the same to various delivery points. Petrophil had no
interest in expending time, money, and effort in conducting a
full-fledged investigation. It was wary of certifications that resulted
in suits against its officials. The complainants are notits employees.
AsÂsumming that Violago and its four drivers could have demanded a
formal investigaÂtion under the arrangements with PetÂrophil and, if
refused, gone to court, Violago must have felt that it would be risking
its entire hauling contract with Petrophil if it went to that extent.
Pressed for the kind of evidence reÂquired by the respondent commission
from Violago, Petrophil may have cancelled the entire contract because
of the forÂmally proved dishonesty of a few. Not only four drivers but
all employees and the entire fleet would have been idled. As a matter
of fact, an affidavit of three constables of the Constabulary Highway
Patrol Group (CHPG) and a report of investigation shows that respondent
Zosimo Sacdalan was apprehended on November 6, 1970 for violation of BP.
Blg. 33, that Sacdalan admitted having diverted a portion of 9,000
liters of gasoline on one occasion and 2,000 liters out of 8,000 liters
on another occasion and that the persons who supposedly received the
diverted gasoline turned out to be fictitious. The statement of
Sacdalan during the investigation in Camp Crame was attached to the
appeal. Instead of remanding the case for the conduct of hearings or at
least lookÂing further into the factual situation, the respondent
commission chose to merely copy verbatim the arbiter’s findings of
facts.“The fact that the four drivers went against their employer who
had no command or control over PeÂtrophil when it would have been a
simpler matter to show that they were free to haul Petrophil products
and that Violago dismissed then for fancied or non-existent reasons
shows that the evidence presented by the petitioner was not only
adequate but also credible.”
According to the Solicitor General and the Citizen’s Legal Assistance
Office, acting as private respondent’s counsel, the fact that Mr.
Apolinario was not given another assignment other than the trucks
servicing San Miguel Corporation confirms the view that he was
unlawfully dismissed by the petitioner. The records show that the
private respondent did not raise this matter in the proceeding below.
There is no showing that Marquez, Inc. serviced other corporations or
that Mr. Apolinario would have been welcome to carry cargoes of these
corporations. The allegations in the complaint are clear to the effect
that Mr. Apolinario was asking for reinstatement to his former position
as driver of the cargo truck he used to drive prior to his alleged
illegal dismissal. This fact is conÂfirmed by the Order of the Deputy
Minister reinstating him to his former position. Whether or not he
should have been assigned to other routes was not touched upon in the
order. This is a factual issue which should have been raised and
threshed out in the proceedÂings below.
The records, however, show that the petitioner ceased operations on
January 3, 1980. Mr. Apolinario, not having been dismissed by his
employer is entitled to separation pay and other benefits which the
other employees may have received as a result of the emÂployer’s
cessation of business operations. This decision is without prejudice to
any such benefits which shall be computed as of April 25, 1978 the date
when Mr. Apolinario stopped working.
WHEREFORE, the Orders dated July 14, 1981 and January 11, 1983 of the
Deputy Minister of Labor are hereby set aside and the Order dated
January 26, 1978 of the Regional Director dismissing private
resÂpondents complaint is reinstated. The dispositive portion of the
January 26, 1978 order is hereby modified by directing the petitioner to
grant separation pay to private respondent equivalent to one-half month
pay for every year of service and other benefits which the other
employees may have received as a result of petiÂtioner’s cessation of
business operations, such benefits to be computed as of April 25, 1978
the date when private respondent stopped working. The temporary
restraining order dated May 7, 1983 issued in connection with the
instant petition is lifted. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Acting Chairman), Plana, Relova and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., (Chairman), on leave.