G.R. No. 118434 - SIXTA C. LIM, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PEPSI-COLA FAR EAST TRADE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Ordering respondent Pepsi-Cola Far East Trade Development Co., Inc. to reinstate complainant to her former position without loss of benefits and seniority rights, or in lieu thereof at the discretion of the respondent company, to pay her separation pay which [sic] equivalent to (P13,550 x 10 years) P135,500.00; 2. Ordering respondent company to pay complainant his [sic] 13th month pay for her imputed service for the years 1991, 1992, and a proportionate amount in 1993, in the total amount of (P13,550 x 2.5) P33,875.00; 3. Ordering respondent company to pay complainant her full backwages the total amount of which up to even date is computed as follows: P13,550.00 x 26 month [sic] = P352,300.00 4. Awarding complainant ten (10%) on his [sic] total monetary reward for and as attorneys fees. PEPSI seasonably appealed from the decision to the NLRC. [29] In its decision [30] of 28 October 1994, the Second Division of the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The dispositive portion of the decision states: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of Labor Arbiter Bartolabac dated July 30, 1993 is hereby REVERSED, vacated and set aside and a new one rendered in its place, validating the complainant Sixta Lims dismissal but directing Pepsi-Cola Far East Trade Development Co., Inc. to pay the complainant separation benefits equivalent to one month pay for every year of service. All other claims are DENIED for lack of merit. Her motion for reconsideration of this adverse decision was denied on 13 December 1994. [31] The petitioner then filed this special civil action for certiorari and contended that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter because: (1) her alleged inefficiency was not among the just causes prescribed by law for the dismissal of an employee; (2) even under PEPSIs new performance evaluation method, her dismissal from employment was not justified; and (3) even assuming that such dismissal was justified, she was still entitled to separation benefits of P268,000.00 in accordance with PEPSIs policy and practice, plus damages and attorneys fees. On the other hand, PEPSI insists that gross inefficiency is just cause for dismissal under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code (P.D. No. 442), as amended, the following are deemed just causes to terminate an employee: (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 foregoin