ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143051.February 19, 2001]

SANCHEZ vs. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated FEB 19 2001.

G.R. No. 143051(Roland Sanchez vs. San Miguel Corporation.)

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53404 promulgated on January 17, 2000 and its resolution dated April 24, 2000 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The facts as gleaned from the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals are:

Petitioner Roland Sanchez is a route salesman of respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC) assigned at the Greater Manila Area. As a route salesman, he was required to remit his daily collections by: (a) accomplishing a deposit slip in three (3) copies specifying the amount in cash or check to be remitted; (b) placing the collections with two (2) copies of the deposit slip in a small duffel bag; (c) dropping the duffel bag with its contents at the window of respondent's vault; and (d) placing the third copy of the deposit slip at the box in the cashier's booth.

According to petitioner, on November 16, 1995, he remitted his cash collections of P43,255.40 in accordance with the above procedures.

The next day, November 17, 1995, the vault was opened in the presence of respondent's representatives, namely: Sofia Maldo, accounting supervisor, Florante Ileto, Jr., financial analyst, and Danilo Comingal, supervising security guard. Also present were the teller and a security guard of the Far East Bank and Trust Company. Sofia Maldo opened the outer door of the vault, while Ramon Agay opened the inner door. Then the big depository bag was brought to the cashier's office, which is two meters away from the vault, for the purpose of counting the cash collections. When the duffel bags were counted, the bag assigned to petitioner was missing.

Forthwith, respondent SMC had the incident investigated and it was found that petitioner deliberately did not drop his duffel bag in the vault on November 16, 1995 but made it appear he did so by sending a copy of his deposit slip to respondent's Financial Department. On January 26, 1996, respondent dismissed petitioner from the service.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the Arbitration Branch (Quezon City) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent. In his decision, the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed and ordered respondent to reinstate him to his former position and to pay his backwages and other benefits.

Respondent seasonably filed a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal with the NLRC.

The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision, holding that there is a reason to doubt that the procedure adopted by respondent SMC for the remittance of the salesmen's daily collection is not "pilferproof;" and that all doubts should be resolved in favor of labor.

Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari alleging in the main that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. Respondent vigorously maintains that it presented substantial evidence to prove that petitioner did not remit his collections on November 16, 1995 which led to its loss of trust and confidence in him, a ground for dismissing an employee from his work.

In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that both the labor arbiter and the NLRC gravely abused their discretion in holding that petitioner's dismissal is illegal .and ordered that his complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. In finding against petitioner, the Court of Appeals held that the unrebutted affidavits of respondent's four (4) security guards, then on duty on November 16 and 17, 1995, conclusively show that petitioner did not enter the room where the cash vault was situated; and that previously, he was caught stealing 422 bottles of beer belonging to respondent SMC, hoarding bottles of beer and remitting daily sales collection short of P4,500.00.

Hence, petitioner's recourse to this Court.

The sole issue for our resolution boils down to this: whether or not petitioner Roland Sanchez dropped the duffel bag containing his collections in respondent's vault on November 16, 1995. Definitely this issue is factual and is, therefore, outside the realm of this Court's authority.

In Siguan vs. Lim, ¹ 318 SCRA 725 (1999).this Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in case brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. Likewise, In Valmonte vs. Court of Appeals, ² 303SCRA 278 (1999).this Court stressed that it is not a trier of facts and will not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.

Even assuming that this Court can review the findings of facts by the Court of Appeals, we hold that it did not commit any reversible error.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE