SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR DIOSCORA ARELLANO AND BIENVENIDO SOTO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order
of the respondent Regional Director dated September 14, 1979 and the decision of the respondent
Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment
dated September 21, 1981 on
the petitioner’s application for clearances to terminate the services of the
private respondent.

The facts of the case are summarized by the respondent Deputy
Minister of Labor and Employment as follows:

“x x
x Complainant was employed by respondent on April 11, 1950 as a field
warehouseman.  Since then, he has
received awards and commendations, including the coveted ‘Salesman of the Year’
as well as promotions, both in
rank and salary.  In 1967, he was appointed District Sales
Supervisor with latest salary of P1,940.00 per month,
plus monthly living allowance of P20.00 travelling
allowance of P80.00 and housing allowance
of P160.00.  On January 16, 1978, complainant was relieved of
his duties as District Sales Supervisor, pending investigation of his alleged
involvement in the ‘cash refunding of condemned shells’.  On August
29, 1978, respondent filed with the Ministry a report of
complainant’s preventive suspension, illegal dismissal and illegal deduction of
salary.  Complainant’s action was by way
of opposition against his termination, consequently,
the two actions were consolidated.

“Among complainant’s duties as District Sales Supervisor was to
condemn ‘shells’ which refer to empty wooden cases used in packing softdrinks bottles. 
Sometime in November 1977 complainant was instructed by Mr. Orlando Neri, then Plant Manager, Calamba Coca-Cola Plant to condemn all unrepairable
shells in the Calapan and Pinamalayan
Sales Office of the Company.

“In connection therewith, respondent charged complainant with
the following infractions:

“On November 21,
1977, he ordered the sales office in Calapan,
Mindoro to condemn 700 shells
contained in miscellaneous slip No. 0226-A, but only 300 shells were allegedly
destroyed.  On November 23, 1971 he ordered also the sales
office in Calapan, Mindoro
to condemn 680 shells under miscellaneous slip No. 0228-A but only 228 shells
were destroyed.  On December 21, 1977, he likewise ordered same
sales office to condemn 600 shells under miscellaneous slip No. 0234-A but only 480 shells were
destroyed.  Respondent further alleged
that starting November 23, 1977, Juan Burgos, the Salesman-in-Charge of the Calapan Sales Office cash-refunded little by little the
shells which were condemned but not actually destroyed and made it appear that
they came from shells refunded by respondent’s customers; that the process was
repeated up to December 30, 1977 until Burgos was able to raise the amount of
P4,860.00 which he allegedly gave to complainant; and that all the above
happened at respondent’s branch in Calapan, Mindoro.  Respondent
also alleged that on November 23,
1977, complainant ordered the sales office at Pinamalayan,
Mindoro to condemn 1,000
shells under miscellaneous slip no. 0444 out of which only 140 shells were
destroyed; and that on December 5,
1977, he likewise ordered said sales office to condemn 2,000 shells
under miscellaneous slip no. 6574 but only 1,728 were destroyed.  Respondent charged that all these were made
possible at the Pinamalayan Branch where complainant
approached Ruperto Refria,
Salesman-in?charge of the branch, who for fear of harassment, enlisted
the help of Armando de las Alas, warehouseman; and
that Refria was able to refund, in cash, for the
period covering from November 2, 1977 the total amount of P1,360.00
which he allegedly gave to complainant.

“Relative to the
foregoing, respondent alleged that complainant borrowed from Juan Burgos during
the month of November and December, 1977 the amount of P4,860.00; that out of
fear, Burgos gave the amount to
complainant Hap Lee, one of respondent’s customers, at its Calapan
Sales Office; that said money represented the proceeds of cash refunds for shells owned by Hap Lee who requested the Calapan Sales Office to hold the money for safekeeping;
that complainant allegedly told Burgos to replace the amount out of the cash
refunds he could make from condemned shells. 
Likewise, respondent charged complainant with taking money from Ruperto
Refria at the Pinamalayan
Branch amounting to P1,360.00 where the same procedure for refunding out of the
condemned shells was followed to raise the amount stated.”

xxx                                 xxx                               xxx

The petitioner based its application for clearance to terminate
the private respondent on the grounds of falsification of company documents,
abuse of authority, and unauthorized removal of company records.

Regional Director Dioscora C.
Arellano gave clearance to terminate
private respondent’s employment because “the applicant corporation
could have lost its trust and confidence on the subject employee, his further
employment therefore would only worsen his relationship with the company on one
hand and Soto and his fellow employees, particularly the witnesses on the other
hand.  The dispositive
portion of her order reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, clearance to terminate Bienvenido Soto is hereby Granted.  Applicant company is however ordered to pay
either the retirement pay of the said employee in accordance with the existing
company policy or Collective Bargaining Agreement or his separation pay of
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service at the option of subject
employee.”

Both parties appealed to
the Ministry of Labor.  Petitioner filed
its appeal while private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration by way
of appeal.

On September 21, 1981,
Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr., set aside the
Decision of the Regional Director and entered a new order directing petitioner
to reinstate private respondent with three (3) years backwages
without qualification.  The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Order
dated September 14, 1979
is hereby set aside, and a new one
entered, ordering respondent to reinstate complainant Bienvenido
Soto with three (3) years backwages without
qualification.”

A motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied on May 25, 1981.

Petitioner assigns the
following grounds for the grant of the petition:

I

PUBLIC RESPONDENTS GRAVELY ABUSED THEIR
DISCRETION IN RENDERING A DECISION
WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL AND WHICH FAILS TO SQUARELY RESOLVE THE ISSUES RAISED IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS.

II

CONSIDERING THAT THE INSTANT CASE MAY NOT BE
SUMMARILY RESOLVED, UNDER THE LABOR CODE, PUBLIC RESPONDENTS ACQUIRED NO
JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME.

III

THE MINISTER OF LABOR AND (SIC) COMMITTED A
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
IN ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LATTER MISAPPROPRIATED
COMPANY FUNDS AND BREACHED THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED UPON HIM BY HIS
EMPLOYER.

We find no merit in the
due process argument.  We agree with the
Solicitor General that, “to disregard an evidence is different from not
considering it.  The former implies prior
consideration or deliberation, but the evidence is not given any weight for being
of no value; the latter connotes the absence of examination or appraisal which
is a due process violation.”

The respondent Regional Director after considering the
petitioner’s evidence found it insufficient to support the charges raised in
the application for clearance.  The
Regional Director, however, gave clearance to terminate the private respondent
on the ground that the petitioner corporation could have lost its trust and
confidence in the private respondent.

We find the consideration of the parties’ evidence conducted by
the regional director and the deputy minister sufficient to meet the standards
of due process.  However, we find that
the conclusions of the respondent deputy minister are not supported by the
facts which he examined.

Respondent Soto is not an ordinary worker limited to the handling
of routine tasks in the company.  He is
the Coca-Cola District Supervisor covering sales offices in the two provinces
of Oriental Mindoro and Batangas.

The salesman-in-charge of the Calapan
Sales Office, Mr. Juan A. Burgos, and the warehouseman of the Pinamalayan Sales Office, Mr. Armando B. de las Alas testified during the investigation that their
supervisor, Mr. Bienvenido L. Soto, would condemn a
certain number of shells but not all would be destroyed.  A portion of the condemned shells would be
made to appear as shells returned by customers to whom cash refunds were
given.  In this way, the respondent was
able to raise the money that he needed. 
It can be gathered from the records that the petitioner entrusts a
considerable amount of business in a wide area in two provinces to the private
respondent.  The petitioner cannot
successfully conduct its business much less compete with other softdrinks firms if it does not have full trust and
confidence in its district sales supervisor.

The respondent Regional
Director found that Mr. Soto’s evidence consisted of “self-serving
denials” but she wanted more concrete evidence of condemned shells being
actually cash refunded together with receipts of the payments.  She, moreover, concluded that puzzling questions remain unanswered because of
insufficient evidence.  The respondent
Deputy Minister agreed with the Director’s factual evaluations but made his own
observations not based on the records on why he found it hard to believe that
customers would allow branch employees to hold their cash refunds or money for safekeeping.  He would also want the private respondent to
be present when the anomalous refunding of shells was being effected.  We stated in Reyes v. Zamora (90 SCRA
92):

“Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an
employee, and proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee’s misconduct –
apparently demanded by the
Minister of Labor – is not required to dismiss him on this charge.  (See National Organization of Laborers and
Employees v. Roldan, 95 Phil. 727; Phil. Refining Co.
v. Garcia, 18 SCRA 107; Gatmaitan v. MRR, 21 SCRA
191) It is sufficient if there is ‘some basis’ for such loss of confidence; (Galsim v. PNB, 29 SCRA 293) or if the employer has
reasonable grounds to believe, if not to entertain the moral conviction that
the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of
his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and
confidence demanded by his position.  (Nevans v. CIR, 23 SCRA 1321)”

Respondent Soto is one of
the top officials of the petitioner in his district.  A district sales supervisor must necessarily
enjoy the full trust and confidence of the company in the area where he
operates.  His acts involving company
funds, goods, and properties must be beyond suspicion.  The trust and confidence in the private
respondent having been lost, the respondent Regional Director acted correctly
in allowing termination of employment but with retirement or separation
benefits.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Deputy
Minister is hereby SET ASIDE.  The Order
dated September 14, 1979 of the Regional Director allowing the termination of
the private respondent’s employment and ordering petitioner corporation to pay
either the retirement pay of the said employee in accordance with existing
company policy or the collective bargaining agreement or his separation pay of
one-half (1/2) month pay for
every year of service at the option of the subject employee is reinstated.

SO
ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and Relova, JJ., concur.