COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND FERNANDO VEGA, RESPONDENTS.

Before us are two
separate petitions docketed as G.R No. 82580 and G.R. No. 84075 both assailing
the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in RAB Case No. VI-0038-85.

Fernando Vega, the
petitioner in G.R. No. 84075, began his employment with
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., the petitioner in G.R. No. 82580, on November
1, 1976 as Sprite Salesman
covering the Iloilo City routes. 
He was subsequently promoted to regular salesman in 1978.  In the same year, however, on charges of
issuing temporary credit sales receipts and denying dealer’s accounts, he was
demoted to relief salesman.  He was also
suspended for one (1) month and six (6) days and grounded for six (6) months.

In 1981, he was again
promoted to regular salesman.  He held
the same position until June 26, 1984 when he was terminated from employment on
the charge of falsification of route sales report.

On July 16,
1984, he filed with
the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a complaint for unfair labor
practice, illegal dismissal, unpaid wages and separation Pay and for damages and attorney’s fees. 
He alleged that he was dismissed without lawful cause because the falsi­fication imputed to him did not result from
deliberate and malicious intent but from honest mistake and oversight. He
averred that on March 10, 1984, on the night he was about to turn over to the
company the proceeds of his sales, he noticed a discrepancy of about P100.00 in
his liquidation report; that after he checked his papers he found that the
Incoming Load Report issued by the gate guard declared only five (5) cases of
empty bottles while the duplicate copy issued by the stock clerk listed fifteen
(15) cases of empties; that as he was about to correct the report, an
unscheduled brown-out occurred; that he immediately submitted the uncorrected
report to the pre-audit personnel with the intention to settle the error the following
day.  He further related that after he
was informed by the cashier of his shortage, he immediately paid the amount of
P100.00; that on May 12, 1984, he was grounded, and, that he submitted to
an investigation hoping that his mistake will not be taken against him but he
received a letter terminating his services on June 26, 1984.  He
pointed out that it is unlikely that he would bargain his seven years of
dedicated service to the Company for a measly sum of P100.00, and stated that
the Company was bent on terminating his services because he was an active union
officer.

To rebut Vega’s
allegations of honest mistake and oversight, however, Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. outlined the procedure for the liquidation of sales.  It contended that because of the sensitive
nature of a sales agent’s job, a system of liquidation was required which consists of daily checks on
the goods and accomplishment of several documents which are subject to regular
audit.  It narrated that on March 10,
1984, upon entering the company’s premises, Vega had the contents of his truck examined by the guard; that
he prepared three (3) copies of the Incoming Load Report (ILR), one copy for
him, one copy for the guard, and one for the files in a box; that the copy in
the files listed five (5) cases of empty bottles; that thereafter, when Vega
entered the plant, the plant checker examined his cargo and prepared two copies
of checker slips, one copy for the stock clerk and one for Vega; that once
inside the plant, Vega prepared his Route Sales Report (RSR) and turned over to
the cashier and finance officer the RSR, ILR and checker slips together with
the cash collection; that upon audit, it was discovered that while the ILR and
checker slips listed only five (5) cases of empty bottles, the RSR listed fifteen (15) cases; that it
was also learned that Vega’s copy of the ILR and checker slips were altered and
also listed fifteen (15) cases; that due to the dis­crepancy the company was
defrauded in the amount of P100.00 more or less.

Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. alleged that It cannot condone
Vega’s acts because his job exposes him to financial transactions everyday. It
further averred that Vega’s acts showed willful and malicious intent to defraud
the company and rendered him unworthy of its trust and confidence.

On July 24,
1986, the Labor
Arbiter found in favor of Vega.  He ruled
that any error in the entries in
the sales report was made unintentionally and may probably be due to the sudden
brown-out alleged by Vega.  He opined
that the penalty of dismissal was too severe considering Vega’s seven years
of dedicated service to the company. 
Thus, he ordered the company to reinstate Vega to his former position
and to pay him full and complete backwages and other
benefits at the rate of P2,280.00 a month until re-instated,
10% attorneys fees and the amount of P5,000.00 as transportation and
other incidental expenses.

On appeal to the National
Labor Relations Commission, the decision was modified.  The NLRC was not convinced that the
falsification was unintentional.  It
further observed that under company rules, the infraction calls for the penalty
of dismissal.  It, however, noted Vega’s
seven years of service to the company and accordingly ordered his reinstatement
with only three (3) months backwages.

Both parties appealed
from the decision.  Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. filed its petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 82580 on April 6,
1988 while Vega
filed the present petition for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No.
84075 on April 21, 1988.

In a resolution dated October
17, 1988, this Court
ordered the two cases consolidated considering that the subject matter and the
issues involved in the two cases emanated from the same decision of the
NLRC.  In accordance with the
Manifestation filed by the Office of the Solicitor General for the respondent
NLRC, the Comment filed in G.R. No. 82580 is considered as the Comment required
by this Court in G.R. No. 84075.  We treat the Comments as Answers and decide these petitions on their
merits.

Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. alleges that the NLRC erred in ordering Vega’s reinstatement notwithstanding its finding that falsification was clearly
committed by Vega.  It
contends that length of service does not warrant an employee’s reinstatement
where there is a clear showing that he committed acts constituting just causes
of termination.

On the other hand, Vega
alleges that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in considering facts
not alleged in the labor arbiter’s decision. 
He further states that the NLRC erred in denying him full backwages in spite of the fact that the labor arbiter
clearly found that Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. committed an unfair
labor practice.

We rule in favor of
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.  The
NLRC’s order of reinstatement based on the sole
ground of length of service does not find support in either law or
jurisprudence.

When adequately proven,
the dual grounds of breach of trust and loss of confidence constitute valid and
ample bases to warrant termination of an errant employee.  (Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation v. Nuwhrain (Ramada Chapter), 159 SCRA 212 /_1988_/)
The employee’s obligation to give his workers just compensation and treatment
carries with it the corollary right to expect from the workers
adequate work, diligence and good conduct. 
(Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Phils. v. Lariosa,
148 SCRA 187 /_1987_/) In the last cited case, this
Court held:

“Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help
workers and employees continue with their employment or to mitigate the
penalties imposed on them, acts
of dis-honesty in the handling of company property
are a different matter.

“Thus under Article 283 of the Labor Code, an employer may
terminate an employment for ‘serious
misconduct’ or for ‘fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
trust reposed in him by his
employer or representative.

“If there is sufficient evidence that an employee has been
guilty of a breach of trust or that his employer has ample reasons to distrust
him, the labor tribunal cannot justly
deny to the employer the authority to dismiss such an employee.”

There is no question that
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., is correct when
it states that Vega’s position as a sales agent is of such a nature as to
require a substantial amount of trust and confidence on the part of the
employer.  The work of a salesman exposes
him to voluminous financial transactions involving his employer’s goods.  The life of the soft drinks company depends
not so much on the bottling or production of the product since
this is primarily done by automatic machines and personnel who are easily
supervised but upon mobile and far ranging salesmen who go from
store to store all over the country or region. 
Salesmen are highly individualistic personnel who have to be trusted and
left essentially on their own.  A high
degree of confidence is reposed in them when they are entrusted with funds or
properties of their employer.

As a general rule,
employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion
in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who, while not
of similar rank, perform functions which by their nature require the employer’s
full trust and confidence.  This must be
distinguished from the case of ordinary rank-and-file
employees, whose termination on the
basis of these same grounds
requires a higher proof of involvement in the
events in question; mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the
employer will not suffice.  (See Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation v. Nuwhrain
(Ramada Chapter) supra).  Thus, in the case of San Miguel Corp. v.
National Labor Relations Commission (142 SCRA 376, 384 /_1986_/),
this Court held:

“Private respondent represents petitioner in his dealings with
the public.  When charges of theft of customer’s
properties and misconduct on the job are imputed
on the sales agent, and these charges are supported with evidence, they constitute
sufficient reasons for termination of employment.  Well established in our jurisprudence is the
right of an employer to dismiss an employee whose continuance in the service is
inimical to the employer’s
interest.  (Manila Trading and Supply,
Co. v. Philippine Labor Union, 71 Phil. 124; Engineering Equipment, Inc. v.
NLRC, 133 SCRA 752)”

In this case, the employee’s infraction was not his first
offense.  We note that he was suspended
and grounded for other offenses he committed in 1978.  We regret, then, that this Court is powerless
to extend to him the remedy of reinstatement even on the ground of equity based
on his length of service.  As this Court
held in the case of Piedad v. Lanao del Norte Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (153 SCRA 500, 509
/1987/:

“The precedents on the issue
before us are clear.  Dismissal of
a dishonest employee is to the best interest
not only of management but also of labor (International Hardwood and Veneer Co.
of the Phils. v. Leogardo, Jr., 117 SCRA 967).  As a measure of
self-protection against acts inimical to its interest, a company has the right
to dismiss its erring employees (Dole Phils, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission, supra). An employer cannot be
compelled to continue in employment an employee guilty of acts inimical to its
interest, justifying loss of confidence in him (International Hardowood and Veneer Co., of the Philippines v. Leogardo, Jr. supra; National Service Corporation v.
Leogardo, Jr supra;
Engineering Equipment, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra).  The law does not impose unjust situations on
either labor or management.”

Because of the difference between the findings of the Labor
Arbiter and the NLPC, we have examined this aspect of the petition
carefully.  We affirm the NLRC conclusion
that there was a clear
falsification of commercial documents in this case.  The tampered documents in the hands of Mr.
Vega and presented to he cashier and finance officer showed fifteen cases of softdrinks
bottles while the earlier copies of the same documents in the hands of the gate
guard the stock clerk and in the files reflected only five cases
returned to the employer.  There was no
brownout yet when the “incoming load report” was given at the guard-house
and the checker slip given to the stock clerk. 
It cannot be reason for the discrepancy. 
Besides, why should a salesman prepare basic reports in the dark? The
tampering to reflect a bigger
number of returns was effected when the salesman presented his reports for the
cashier and finance officer.  The
allegation that the salesman would not risk his job for such a small amount is
not a defense because minor pilferages or thefts carried on over a long period
of time through false reports or juggling of funds and properties may, as
intended by the employee, remain unnoticed but they would destroy the company
nonetheless if unchecked or tolerated, The Labor Arbiter is wrong; the NLRC is
correct insofar as the appreciation of facts Is concerned.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The dismissal of
petitioner Fernando Vega from his employment by Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Incorporated is AFFIRMED as valid and according to law.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.