G.R. No. 228412 - ALASKA MILK CORPORATION AND THE ESTATE OF WILFRED UYTENGSU, V. ERNESTO L. PONCE.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the complaint for illegal dismissal is GRANTED and respondent Alaska Milk Corporation is directed to reinstate complainant to his former position as Director for Engineering Services or any position equivalent thereto, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay him backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent from 11 August 2010 up to his actual reinstatement which as of this date amounts to P5,926,000.00. In the event appeal is interposed from this decision by either of the parties, respondent corporation is, nevertheless directed to comply with the order for complainant's immediate reinstatement even pending appeal. In such a case, respondent corporation is directed to notify complainant and this Office within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, of the manner how it shall reinstate complainant to work, either physically or in the payroll at its option, without loss of seniority rights in either case. Respondent corporation is further directed to pay complainant attorney's fee in the amount of P300,000.00. All other claims are DENIED for failure of complainant to substantiate the same and for lack of merit. SO DECIDED. [12] Aggrieved, AMC elevated an appeal before the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision, dated July 29, 2013, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA's ruling. It ruled that the act of soliciting official receipts in exchange for a 5% rebate was an act of dishonesty inimical to the interest of AMC, as Ponce would be collecting receipted allowance from expenses which he did not actually incur. The NLRC rejected the LA's theory that AMC condoned the act because it did not warn or admonish Ponce prior to the issuance of the First Performance Evaluation Memorandum. It pointed out that Ponce's R/A e-mail came to the knowledge of Uytengsu, Sr. only in February 2010. The NLRC opined that Ponce's explanation on the R/A e-mail issue was an admission which required no proof. Accordingly, it ruled that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Ponce's dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Further, the NLRC did not sustain Ponce's claim that his dismissal was effected to appease the union and forestall a threat of concerted action. It observed that Ponce submitted his report concerning the overtime costs on May 4, 2009, but such report preceded the June 24, 2009 Memorandum wherein Uytengsu, Sr. allegedly ordered him to investigate the matter. Thus, the NLRC concluded that the June 24, 2009 Memorandum was not really an order for Ponce to investigate. The fallo reads: WHEREFORE , the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.