Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > September 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 51632 September 7, 1989 - PEPSICO, INCORPORATED vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 51632. September 7, 1989.]

PEPSICO, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JOSE S. LAPID, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAW; EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATION; MANAGERIAL EMPLOYMENT, HOW DETERMINED. — Evidence that petitioner Lapid, as "Director of Leasing," was in charge of purchasing and leasing industrial machinery, which was his employee’s principal activity in the Philippines, that he managed his own department and had wellnigh plenary authority and discretion to enter into contract binding on his employer, cannot be interpreted otherwise than as showing that he was a managerial employee.

2. ID.; EMPLOYMENT; TERMINATION DUE TO INCOMPETENCE AND NEGLIGENCE. — The purchase of machineries represented as brand new but discovered later to be second hand; and/or prices higher than those quoted by the other sellers for the same type constitute circumstances sufficient to cause an employer to lose trust and confidence in the employee and to justify his dismissal.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SEPARATION PAY ALLOWED AS A MEASURE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE. — The award by the Labor Arbiter of "financial assistance" to Lapid is not therefore proscribed by the doctrine laid down in PLDT v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80609, August 23, 1988, reiterated in Osias Academy v. Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 83234, April 18, 1989, that financial assistance or "separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct" but not where the cause for termination of employment reflects on his personal integrity or morality. Such financial assistance is specially appropriate in this case, considering that Lapid, who had served PEPSICO for a considerable length of time, is now in his middle sixties, and is reportedly suffering from incurable emphysema and is in difficult economic straits.


D E C I S I O N


NARVASA, J.:


Jose S. Lapid occupied the position of "Director of Leasing" in petitioner firm, PEPSICO, Inc. He had a salary of P4,200.00 a month, 1 enjoyed certain fringe benefits including a "car plan," and had the following duties and functions, 2 to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A. Canvass potential applicant/lessees, mainly from personal contacts.

B. Surveys the applicant’s business.

C. Communicates and order(s) the equipment with a supplier or in the case of a sale and leaseback, physically inspect(s) the applicant’s equipment.

D. Requests and follow(s) up on approval of the lease application handling all documents for leasing until approval of the credit committee.

E. Receives collections from the lessee (even) without using any receipt.

F. Handles the repossession and sale of equipment for lessees in default."cralaw virtua1aw library

It having been discovered that he had purchased for PEPSICO various types of machinery and equipment which he represented to be brand new but which, on subsequent inspection were discovered to be if not second-hand, over-valued, and that of twenty-four (24) lease agreements he had executed as PEPSICO’s Director of Leasing, fourteen (14) had turned out to be "bad accounts," all said transactions involving an amount of more than P7 million, his employer terminated his services on account of loss of confidence in his competence and reliability. 3

Thereafter, Lapid, through an attorney, wrote to PEPSICO requesting that he be reinstated or, alternatively, that he be allowed to retire under the company’s retirement plan. 4 His request was turned down, PEPSICO asserting that as shown by indubitable documentary evidence, he had "been grossly and habitually negligent in processing a number of leasing agreements with company customers . . . and such gross and habitual neglect on . . . (his part in the) performance of his duties (had) resulted in enormous losses to the company for which reason the latter could no longer retain him in its employ." 5

Lapid then filed a complaint against PEPSICO and Reginald M. Pointon (a PEPSICO official, and member of its Credit Committee) 6 with the Labor Regional Office praying that his dismissal be pronounced illegal, and that he be reinstated and paid damages. 7 The verdict went against him, however. The Labor Arbiter found, after a thoroughgoing analysis of the evidence, that Lapid was a managerial employee, that there was sufficient basis for his employer’s loss of confidence in him, and, being a managerial employee, his dismissal required no prior clearance from the Department of Labor. Nonetheless, the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment to him of financial assistance in the sum of P56,700.00, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, pursuant to the above dispositions, the respondents are hereby ordered to pay complainant Jose S. Lapid the amount of FIFTY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PESOS (P56,700.00) by way of financial assistance." 8

On appeal, 9 the NLRC reversed the judgment of the Labor Arbiter, categorizing Lapid as a rank-and-file employee, not managerial, and declaring that he had been illegally dismissed as no clearance had been secured from the Labor Department prior to the termination of his services. He was consequently awarded separation pay as well as back wages from the time of his separation from employment until the finality of the decision. 10

This judgment is assailed as having been rendered by the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion, in the instant special civil action of certiorari. PEPSICO’s petition alleges that in decreeing payment to Lapid of back wages and separation pay, the NLRC had unwarrantedly and capriciously disregarded the evidence persuasively establishing Lapid’s status as a managerial employee, as well as the facts constituting adequate foundation for PEPSICO’s loss of confidence in him. The petition has merit. The writ of certiorari prayed for will issue.

The evidence relative to Lapid’s employment classification is incapable of no interpretation except that of his being a managerial employee. This is evident from the nature of the duties and functions attached to his position as "Director of Leasing;" he was in charge of purchasing and leasing industrial machinery and equipment which, as the Labor Arbiter points out, was his employer’s principal activity in the Philippines; he managed his own department and had well nigh plenary authority and discretion to enter into contracts in his employer’s behalf and binding on the latter, indeed he did execute a number of contracts involving an aggregate amount of more than seven million pesos. Under these circumstances, it is absurd to even think of categorizing such an employee as a rank-and-file employee, rather than a managerial and primarily confidential one.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The evidence of his incompetence and negligence, is equally convincing; he had bought machinery which he represented to his employer as brand new but which was later discovered to be second-hand; he had foisted a fictitious supplier upon the company; he had purchased equipment at prices higher than those of the same type quoted to him by other sellers; he had caused enormous losses to his employer. These facts suffice by any standards to cause his employer to lose trust and confidence in him, in his ability and his trustworthiness, justifying his dismissal from employment, 11 a dismissal which, it must be added, concerning as it did a managerial employee, required no prior clearance from the Department of Labor. 12

The record demonstrates no adequate basis, to repeat, for respondent Commission to disregard the evidence on record and reverse the judgment of the Labor Arbiter. In doing so, the Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, its decision must itself be, as it is hereby nullified.

It is noteworthy that PEPSICO does not ascribe any dishonesty or moral turpitude to Lapid. Neither has the Labor Arbiter done so. What PEPSICO ascribes to Lapid is "gross negligence in the performance of his duties resulting in tremendous losses" to it. 13 The award by the Labor Arbiter of "financial assistance" to Lapid is not therefore proscribed by the doctrine laid down in PLDT v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80609, August 23, 1988, reiterated in Osias Academy v. Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 83234, April 18, 1989, that financial assistance or "separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct" but not where the cause for termination of employment reflects on his personal integrity or morality. Such financial assistance is specially appropriate in this case, considering that Lapid, who had served PEPSICO for a considerable length of time, is now in his middle sixties, and is reportedly suffering from incurable emphysema and is in difficult economic straits. 14

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Commission dated August 31, 1979 is NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE, and that of the Labor Arbiter REINSTATED and CONFIRMED, without pronouncement as to costs.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. A not inconsiderable sum at the time, 1975.

2. Respondent’s Comment, Feb. 2, 1980, pp. 10-12.

3. Rollo, pp. 405-408.

4. Id., p. 39; Exh. G, Annex C.

5. Id.; Exh. H, Annex C.

6. Rollo, p. 39.

7. Id., p. 296.

8. Id., p. 39.

9. Docketed as NLRC Case No. RO-IV-11519-77.

10. Annex H, ibid. pp. 10-12; Decision dated Aug. 31, 1979.

11. Riker v. Ople, 155 SCRA 92 [1987].

12. ART. 267(b), Labor Code; Victoria v. Inciong, 157 SCRA 345 [1987].

13. Rollo, p. 39; SEE footnote 2, page 2, supra.

14. Rollo, p. 578.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-39215 September 1, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. UTILITY ASSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 63118 September 1, 1989 - JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73642 September 1, 1989 - RESTITUTO PALMA GIL, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 84960 September 1, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN M. ASIO

  • G.R. No. 83216 September 4, 1989 - TERESITA QUINTOS-DELES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71681 September 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO S. MARILAO

  • G.R. No. 75206 September 5, 1989 - TOMAS GALGALA, ET AL. v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79416 September 5, 1989 - ROSALINA BONIFACIO, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD G. DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46064 September 7, 1989 - MIGUELA MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51632 September 7, 1989 - PEPSICO, INCORPORATED vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 73465 September 7, 1989 - LEONIDA CUREG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76883 September 7, 1989 - VASSAR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78975 September 7, 1989 - IGNACIO V. SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82458 September 7, 1989 - CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82478 September 7, 1989 - JUANITO DE ASIS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84578 September 7, 1989 - JOSE VICENTE SANTIAGO, IV v. BONIER DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85468 September 7, 1989 - QUINTIN S. DOROMAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87140 September 7, 1989 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88637 September 7, 1989 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74978 September 8, 1989 - MARKET DEVELOPERS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75819 September 8, 1989 - FERMIN ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81861 September 8, 1989 - BERNABE QUE, ET AL. v. RODRIGO V. COSICO

  • G.R. No. 82696 September 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOELITO MANZANARES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-89-251 September 8, 1989 - CONRADO SANTOS v. OSCAR I. LUMANG

  • G.R. No. 68203 September 13, 1989 - METUROGAN L. SAREP v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 69251 September 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO GOLE CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 83907 September 13, 1989 - NAPOLEON GEGARE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87014-16 September 13, 1989 - SALIC B. DUMARPA, ET AL. v. JAMIL DIMAPORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76216 September 14, 1989 - GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76573 September 14, 1989 - MARUBENI CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78409 September 14, 1989 - NORBERTO SORIANO v. OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35453 September 15, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63996 September 15, 1989 - EUSEBIO FRANCISCO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL,

  • G.R. No. 67880 September 15, 1989 - FELIX ESMALIN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72355-59 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN P. DAVID

  • G.R. No. 73053 September 15, 1989 - CARMELITA U. CRUZ v. GUILLERMO C. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74060 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESTITO HERMOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75662 September 15, 1989 - MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75693 September 15, 1989 - MARCELO BONDOC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80599 September 15, 1989 - ERNESTINA CRISOLOGO-JOSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81949 September 15, 1989 - METERIO GUZMAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82670 September 15, 1989 - DOMETILA M. ANDRES v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER & TRUST CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82703 September 15, 1989 - MAURO DE LA CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82971 September 15, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82973 September 15, 1989 - MARIO CARTAGENAS, ET AL. v. ROMAGO ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83695 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROY ALZAGA

  • G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS, ET AL. v. RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71116 September 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO HORTILLANO

  • G.R. No. 81231 September 19, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65418 September 25, 1989 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43810 September 26, 1989 - TOMAS CHIA v. ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75305 September 26, 1989 - MICHAEL PEÑALOSA, ET AL. v. CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78412 September 26, 1989 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78519 September 26, 1989 - VICTORIA YAU CHU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80719 September 26, 1989 - HILDA RALLA ALMINE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82325 September 26, 1989 - ESPIRITU SANTO PAROCHIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83250 September 26, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47206 September 27, 1989 - GLORIA M. DE ERQUIAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-86-11 September 27, 1989 - DAVID G. OMPOC v. NORITO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 39507 September 28, 1989 - IN RE: FRANCISCO SIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 46454 September 28, 1989 - NICETAS C. RODRIGUEZ v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 54472-77 September 28, 1989 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35652 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMINIO TAACA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 42782 September 29, 1989 - FIGURADO O. PLAZA v. JUAN C. TUVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48603 September 29, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. 50702 September 29, 1989 - ALFREDO CABRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57079 September 29, 1989 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61272 September 29, 1989 - BAGONG BAYAN CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69190 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO NIEBRES

  • G.R. No. 73006 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO PERIODICA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75009 September 29, 1989 - FRANCISCO M. ANGELES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 September 29, 1989 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

  • G.R. No. 76612 September 29, 1989 - ROMELITO ZAGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78339 September 29, 1989 - WENCESLAO D. MONSERRATE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79622 September 29, 1989 - ENRIQUETO F. TEJADA v. HOMESTEAD PROPERTY CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80352 September 29, 1989 - BENJAMIN G. INDINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80892 September 29, 1989 - ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82508 September 29, 1989 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83751 September 29, 1989 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83946 September 29, 1989 - NENITA E. BABIDA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989 - RICARDO C. VALMONTE, ET AL. v. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85879 September 29, 1989 - NG SOON v. 0ALOYSIUS ALDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86105-06 September 29, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.