G.R. No. 117652 - ROLANDO APARENTE, SR., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil. Inc. (CCBPI) is hereby directed to reinstate complainant to his former or substantially equivalent position in General Santos City without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. Pursuant to RA 6715, the reinstatement of complainant is immediately executory upon the promulgation of this Decision. The claim for backwages and damages is however DENIED for reasons aforecited. [11] Dissatisfied, both parties appealed to the NLRC which dismissed both appeals and affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter in a resolution dated June 27, 1994. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the said resolution which was granted by the NLRC on September 19, 1994. In reversing its previous resolution, the NLRC ruled: WHEREFORE, the Resolution of this Commission dated June 27, 1994 is reconsidered. Accordingly, the Resolution [affirming] [12] the decision of Labor Arbiter below dated April 23, 1990 is vacated and set aside. In its stead, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of complainant as one for just cause and effected after observance of due process. His dismissal, is, thus, Sustained [as valid and lawful. However, considering that complainants violation of company rule is not reflective of his moral character plus his eighteen (18) long years of loyal and efficient service to the company, respondent company is ordered to pay complainant separation pay by way of financial assistance equivalent to one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service. Complainants appeal is ordered Dismissed for lack of merit. [13] Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that the NLRC erred in holding that private respondent afforded him due process. He argues that when he was investigated for his involvement in the vehicular accident, it was simply for the offense of driving without a valid drivers license. He further asserts that had he been informed of the alleged damages incurred by private respondent, he could have presented evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, he would not have been terminated from service pursuant to Sec. 12 of Rule 005-85 of CCBPIs Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations which provides that: A first, second and third offense is punishable only by a suspension of 6 days, 15 days, and 30 days, respectively. The penalty of "discharge" is imposed only after the fourth offense or when the damage caused upon private respondent is more than P5,000.00. (Underscoring supplied). Petitioners contention is baseless. He was fully aware that he was being investigated for his involvement in the vehicular accident that took place on November 9, 1987. The investigation was conducted because he figured in an accident in which he sideswiped Marilyn Tejero, and not for mere violation of traffic rules. It was also known to petitioner that as a result of the accident, the victim suffered a 2 cm. fracture on her skull which led to the latters surgical operation and confinement in the