ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 149629. January 10, 2005]
GUSTILO vs. WYETH PHILS.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 10 2005 .
G.R. No. 149629 (Alan D. Gustilo vs. Wyeth Phils., Inc., Filemon Verzano, Jr., Aurelio Mercado and Edgar Epilepsia.)
Before us for resolution are: (1) the motion of Alan D. Gustilo, petitioner, seeking a reconsideration of our Decision dated October 4, 2004 denying his petition for review on certiorari; and (2) joint comment of Wyeth Phils., Inc., Filemon Verzano, Jr., Aurelio Mercado and Edgar Epilepsia, respondents.
In the instant motion for reconsideration, petitioner contends that we erred in affirming the Appellate Court's finding that he was legally dismissed from the service.
He emphasized that his past infractions could not be used as justification for his dismissal from the service as it would be tantamount to "double jeopardy or vexing him twice for the same offense." Besides, he claims that these disciplinary sanctions were actually respondent Verzano's "retaliatory measures" against him.
In their joint comment on the motion, respondents assert that dismissal of petitioner from the service is not tainted with illegality or bad faith considering that he was a habitual offender who committed numerous contraventions of respondent company's disciplinary rules and regulations.
It bears reiterating that petitioner did not only violate the company's disciplinary rules and regulations. As found by the Court of Appeals, he falsified his employment application form by not stating therein that he is the nephew of Mr. Danao, respondent Wyeth's Nutritional Territory Manager. Also, on February 2, 1993, he was suspended for falsifying a gasoline receipt. On June 28, 1993, he was warned for submitting a false report of his trade outlet calls. On September 8, 1993, he was found guilty of unauthorized availment of sick, vacation and emergency leaves. His dismissal from the service is, therefore, in order.
In Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, [1] cralaw we ruled that "previous infractions may be used as justification for an employee's dismissal from work in connection with a subsequent similar offense."
Similarly, in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. NLRC, [2] cralaw we held:
"Nor can it be plausibly argued that because the offenses were already given the appropriate sanctions, they cannot be taken against him. They are relevant in assessing private respondent's liability for the present violation for the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty. To sustain private respondent's argument that the past violation should not be considered is to disregard the warning previously issued to him."
Indeed, in Piedad vs. Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., [3] cralaw we stressed that a series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct, which under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, [4] cralaw is a just cause for dismissal.
Anent movant's claim that his dismissal from the service was actually respondent Verzano's "retaliatory measure" against him, suffice it to say that it has no merit.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Assistant Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw G.R. No. 117418, January 24, 1996, 252 SCRA 323, 333, citing Filipro , Inc. vs. Ople, 182 SCRA 1 (1990).
[2] cralaw G.R. No. 98137, September 15, 1997, 279 SCRA 106, 115.
[3] cralaw G.R. No. L-73735, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 500, 509, citing National Service Corporation vs. Leogardo, Jr., 130 SCRA 502 (1984).
[4] cralaw ART. 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
