Coca-cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. v.

Kapisanan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Coca-Cola-FFW and

Florentino Ramirez
Feb. 28, 2005 | 2nd Div | J. Callejo, Sr.

Facts:
1. Coca-Cola hired Ramirez as driver-helper in 1982. In October 1996, the company
assigned him as temporary replacement of the regular route salesman for routes M11,
AMC, and LPR since he had been driving fro the route salesman for so long.
2. Thereafter, Victor Dela Cruz,OIC of the Batangas Sales Office, informed the OIC of DSS-
District 44, that a review of the copies of the invoices relating to the transactions of
Ramirez in Route M11 revealed discrepancies in (a) the number of cases delivered to
customers; (b) empty bottles retrieved from them, and (c) the amounts in Sales Invoices
Nos. 3212215, 3288587, 3288763, 3288765 and 3288764.
3. Ramirez received a memorandum from the company requiring him to report to the office
until such time that he would be notified of the formal investigation of the charges
against him. During the formal investigation, Ramirez explained that:
- he failed to note the return of 33 cases of empty bottles in the customers copy of the
sales invoice because the latter misplaced the invoice; however, the bottles were
turned over to the company;
- the customer made an overpayment of P504.00, however, he returned the amount to
the customer from his own money and retained the P504.00 by way of
reimbursement;
- the discrepancy with regard to Sales Invoice No. 3288763 and 3288765 was made due
to his inadvertence; and
- he only realized the return of several cases of empty bottles amounting to P2,250
when he had already unloaded and given the customers copy of the sales invoice;
however, he indicated the same in the copy of the sales invoice he submitted to the
company.
4. The company dismissed Ramirez on the ground that he clearly violated Sections 10 and
12 if the CCBPI Employees Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations coupled with his
prior infractions.
5. Ramirez and the union filed a complaint for ULP and illegal dismissal against the
Company. LA and NLRC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. CAs original
decision upheld both LA and NLRC; however, in its Resolution CA held that the penalty
of dismissal was too harsh and that there was no dishonesty or a demonstration of moral
perverseness as would justify the claimed loss of confidence attendant to the job. CA also
held that he was not afforded due process.

Issue: W/N Ramirez was dismissed without just or valid cause. YES

Ratio:

The court upheld that Ramirez committed irregularities in the performance of his duties as a
route salesman, however, the penalty of dismissal for such infraction is too severe.

In order to effect a valid dismissal of an employee, the law requires that there be just and valid
cause as provided in Article 282 and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to be heard
and to defend himself. The burden of proof is always on the employer to prove that the dismissal
was for a just and valid cause.

In cases when an employer may dismiss an employee on the ground of willful disobedience,
there must be concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employees assailed conduct must
have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse
attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

Re: Dishonesty

Here, Ramirez was dismissed for dishonesty, more specifically for violation of the company
policy, and, more particularly, Sections 10 and 12 of Company Rules and Regulation No. 005-85,
Fictitious sales transactions; Falsification of company records/data/documents/reports;
Conspiring or conniving with, or directing others to commit fictitious transactions; and
inefficiency in the performance of duties, negligence and blatant disregard of or deviation from
established control and other policies and procedures.
However, the company failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that the Ramirez had
fictitious sales transactions, or that he falsified company records/documents/reports, or that he
connived with customers of the company to persuade them to commit fictitious transactions.
While it is true that Ramirez committed infractions in his sales transaction, there is no clear and
convincing evidence that the he did so intentionally, for a wrong or criminal purpose. There is
also no showing that the he intentionally defied the lawful orders or regulations of the company.
It was very possible that the discrepancies found in the documents reflecting Ramirez
transactions as an acting salesman could very well have been due to simple inadvertence and the
fact that the customers, who for some reason failed to pay their accounts with exact cash but
instead partly with empty bottles, later misplaced their copy of the invoice. Thus, their copy
could not be corrected seasonably. The recording was very likely bungled further by his lack of
training and familiarity with the strict recording procedures.

Re loss of trust and confidence

Requisites:
1. The loss of confidence must not be simulated;
2. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper or
unjustified;
3. It may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
4. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith;
and
5. The employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence.

Loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact
that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility or trust and confidence. As such,
he must be invested with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody handling or care
and protection of the property and assets of the employer. In order to constitute a just cause for
dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related. It must be shown that the employee is
unfit to continue to work for the employer. Further, well-settled is the rule that for loss of trust
and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal of an employee, it must be substantial and
founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employees separation from
employment.

Here, the court held that salesmen are highly individualistic personnel who have to be trusted
and left essentially on their own. A high degree of confidence is reposed on them because they
are entrusted with funds or properties of their employer. However, the designation of the
Ramirez, who was employed as driver-helper, but temporarily assigned as route salesman for a
period of three (3) days, did not automatically make him an employee on whom company
reposed trust and confidence, for breach of which he shall be meted the penalty of dismissal.
Despite his additional duties, Ramirez remained a driver-helper of the company. Thus, he cannot
be dismissed pursuant to Article 282 of the Labor Code.