G.R. NO. 148205 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHILS., INC., VS. KAPISANAN NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA COCA-COLA-FFW AND FLORENTINO RAMIREZ.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioners motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED, and Our decision of 25 October 2000 is vacated. The assailed resolutions of public respondent dated September 20, 1999 and December 21, 1999 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new judgment is rendered, ordering the respondent company to reinstate petitioner Florentino A. Ramirez to his job as driver-helper without loss of seniority and other rights, and to pay him his full backwages, allowances and other benefits until his retirement, without diminution, or their monetary equivalent, plus 10% as attorneys fees. Costs against private respondent. [17] The CA ratiocinated that as an acting salesman who did not possess the required basic training of a route salesman, Ramirez was made to discharge the duties of a route salesman. It also emphasized that as driver/helper, his job was not a position reposed with trust and confidence. Thus, the CA declared that the petitioner committed a mere oversight of certain internal control procedures in the proper recording of his sales and other transactions, resulting in the shortage in one transaction, offset by an overage in another. While he was inefficient and incompetent as a route salesman, he was not so as a driver/helper. Considering that he was merely discharging the functions of a salesman in an acting capacity, and that the petitioner company did not suffer any loss on account of the violations and/or omissions of Ramirez, the penalty of dismissal was too harsh. The CA also ruled that there was no dishonesty or a demonstration of moral perverseness as would justify the claimed loss of confidence attendant to the job, and, as such, gave Ramirez the benefit of the doubt. On the issue of due process, the CA ruled that the petitioner was not afforded due process because the panel of investigators focused on Ramirezs violations of internal control procedures instead of the substance of the charges against him. [18] Aggrieved by the appellate courts volte face , the petitioner company filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, alleging that: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE SETTLED RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THAT: THE RESPONDENT WAS LAWFULLY TERMINATED FROM EMPLOYMENT. THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN RENDERING THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTIONS. THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ARE MERE CONCLUSIONS REACHED WITHOUT CITATION OR SPECIFIC EVIDENCE AND/OR ARE PREMISED ON THE PURPORTED ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. [19] The core issue for resolution is whether or not respondent Florentino Ramirez was dismissed by the petitioner without just or valid cause. The Respondent Committed Irregularities in the Performance of His Duties as Route Salesman We find, as the CA did in its assailed Resolution, that