G.R. NO. 156893 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., NATALE DI COSMO, RENE HORILLENO, AND BENITO A. DE LEON, VS. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED . The assailed resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as [respondent] was merely awarded separation pay and a new judgment is rendered (i) reinstating [respondent] to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and (ii) awarding him full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. [4] The questioned Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts The CA narrated the facts as follows: Hired on November 16, 1983 by Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (or Coca-Cola) as company guard, Gomersendo Daniel (or [respondent]) was assigned at its Calamba plant. On February 12, 1996, at about 1:15 p.m., a delivery van x x x arrived at the plants Gate 2. As standard procedure, [respondent], who was then on duty, flagged down the van and inspected its load, i.e., an empty carton box and three (3) empty post-mix softdrink tanks. Before allowing the vans entry to the plant, [respondent] noted in the logbook its cargo, drivers name and [the] time of arrival. On or about 2:15 p.m. of the same day, Benito de Leon, x x x Coca-Cola Calamba plant security and safety officer, arrived at Gate 2. While de Leon was giving instructions to [respondent], the van stopped for inspection. After inspection of the van by the agency guard, Ronilo Diel, he allowed the same to leave the plant. For allegedly allowing the van to leave the plant without proper inspection and documentation, [respondent] was charged with negligence or inefficiency in the performance of duties. After investigation, de Leon recommended to Rene Horrilleno x x x, Coca-Cola Calamba plant manager, the termination of [respondents] employment. In a memorandum dated May 16, 1996, Horrilleno rejected de Leons recommendation stating, among others, that: (i) the penalty of termination is not proportionate to the offense committed; (ii) the recommendation letter was not duly signed; (iii) past misdemeanors have no cumulative effect under Coca-Colas rules and procedures; and (iv) [respondent] was a recipient of a scholarship grant given only to employees with high performance ratings. Subsequently, de Leon recommended a 30-day suspension of [respondent]. However, Horrilleno rejected de Leons recommendation in a memorandum dated June 24, 1996, stressing fair play, impartiality, and judiciousness when our subordinates are faced with disciplinary issues. Instead, Horilleno instructed de Leon to place [respondent] on regular duty as the latter had been on grounded status since March 19, 1996. [Respondents] case was then referred to Coca-Colas general counsel for review. On August 22, 1996, after due investigation, Coca-Cola found [respondent] to have been negligent in the February 12, 1996 incident and meted on him a 30-