ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
A.
MARQUEZ, INC.,
G. R. No. L-63227 March 15, 1984 -versus-DEPUTY
MINISTER VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.chanrobles virtual law library
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a
Petition for Review of the Orders of
the Ministry of Labor 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.
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 substantiate his stand that he was illegaly dismissed by the petitioner: First, respondent had not filed any application for clearance to terminate his services; second, no investigation was ever conducted by respondent; and third, the alleged theft of empty coke shells cannot be a ground for dismissal. 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 destination 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.cralaw:red 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 dismissal 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.cralaw:red 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 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:
The Deputy Minister of Labor's ruling was due to the petitioner's failure to file the required clearance requirement with 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 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, "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. Moreover, 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.cralaw:red In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks v. The National Labor Relations Commission, et al., [1 17 SCRA 544], We ruled:
The records, however, show that the petitioner ceased operations on January 3, 1980. Mr. Apolinario, not having been dismiss by his employer is entitled to separation pay and other benefits which the other employees may have received as a result of the employer'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.cralaw:red 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 respondents 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 petitioner'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.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.
|
|