G.R. No. 163091 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. ANGEL U. DEL VILLAR.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered against [the Company and the impleaded Company officials] and in favor of [Del Villar] ordering [the Company] to (1) reinstate [Del Villar] to his former job level; (2) to return the car to [Del Villar] or to compensate [Del Villar] for the loss of his privileges such as the value of the Toyota car as of the time of taking including the value of the gasoline allowance and the foreign travel due [Del Villar]; (3) indemnify [Del Villar] moral damages of P1,000,000.00 Pesos and exemplary damages of P1,000,000.00 Pesos, aside from attorney's fees of 10% of sums herein awarded. [9] The Company expectedly appealed to the NLRC. While the case was still pending appeal before the NLRC, Del Villar received a letter dated April 28, 1998, signed by one Virgilio B. Jimeno for the Company, which read: Dear Mr. Del Villar: Presently, the Company is implementing various programs to ensure the accomplishment of its corporate goals and objectives, and to increase the productivity of its workforce. Since the various programs will affect some of its employees, the Company has initiated a special program called "Project New Start". This program is intended to assist employees whose positions will be declared redundant with the implementation of new distribution systems, utilization of improved operational processes and functional re-organizations. Your position has been determined as no longer necessary due to the reorganization of the Business Logistics Directorate. The Transportation and Refrigeration Services Department of the Technical Operations Directorate has absorbed your function and our efforts to transfer you to a similar position within the organization have not been successful. Thus, you are considered separated from [the Company] effective May 31, 1998. Thank you for your kind understanding. We wish you success and God's blessings in all your future undertakings. [10] In a Decision dated February 26, 1999, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, reasoning that: Contrary to the Labor Arbiter's pronouncement that [the Company] should have rebutted allegations of bad faith and malice, we are more inclined to apply the presumption of good faith. Mere conclusions of fact and law should not be used as bases for an automatic finding of bad faith. As it is, we do not even see any disclosure of the scam and his alleged demotion. If indeed the so-called "great grandmother of Coca cola scams of 1996" were true, the logical consequence of such disclosure is for the president of the company to dismiss the erring employees and officers for their highly irregular acts and not to penalize [Del Villar] for making such disclosure. This is amply supported by the fact that the [the Company] conducted a thorough investigation of the reported scam and even obtained the services of an independent auditor to determine whether the alleged anomalous transactions were actually irregular and/or questionable. This manifests th