THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 82580 April 25, 1989

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED, Petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FERNANDO VEGA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 84075 April 25, 1989
FERNANDO VEGA, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION THIRD DIVISION, MANILA and COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS, PHILIPPINES, INC., [Link] virtual law
library
GUTIERREZ JR., J.:
Before us are two separate petitions docketed as G.R. No. 82580 and G.R.
No. 84075 both assailing the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission in RAB Case No. Vl0038-85.
FACTS: library
Fernando Vega, the petitioner in G.R. No. 84075, began his
employment with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., the
petitioner in G.R. No. 82580, on November 1, 1976 as Sprite
Salesman covering the Iloilo City routes. He was subsequently
promoted to regular salesman in 1978. In the same year, however,
on charges of issuing temporary credit sales receipts and denying
dealer's accounts, he was demoted to relief salesman He was also
suspended for one (1) month and six (6) days and grounded for
six (6) [Link] chanrobles virtual law
library
In 1981, he was again promoted to regular salesman. He held the
same position until June 26,1984 when he was terminated from
employment on the charge of falsification of route sales
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
On July 16,1984, he filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment
a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, unpaid wages and
separation pay and for damages and attorney's fees. He alleged that he
was dismissed without lawful cause because the falsification imputed to
him did not result from deliberate and malicious intent but from honest
mistake and oversight. He averred that on March 10, 1984, on the night
he was about to turn over to the company the proceeds of his sales, he
noticed a discrepancy of about P100.00 in his liquidation report; that after
he checked his papers he found that the Incoming Load Report issued by

the gate guard declared only five (5) cases of empty bottles while the
duplicate copy issued by the stock clerk listed fifteen (15) cases of
empties; that as he was about to correct the report, an unscheduled
brown-out occurred; that he immediately submitted the uncorrected
report to the pre-audit personnel with the intention to settle the error the
following day. He further related that after he was informed by the cashier
of his shortage, he immediately paid the amount of Pl00.00; that on May
12, 1984, he was grounded, and, that he submitted to an investigation
hoping that his mistake will not be taken against him but he received a
letter terminal his services on June 26,1984. He pointed out that it is
unlikely that he would bargain his seven years of dedicated service to the
Company for a measly sum of P100.00, and stated that the Company was
bent on terminating his services because he was an active union
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
To rebut Vega's allegations of honest mistake and oversight, however,
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. outlined the procedure for the
liquidation of sales. It contended that because of the sensitive nature of a
sales agent's job, a system of liquidation was required which consists of
daily checks on the goods and accomplishment of several documents
which are subject to regular audit. It narrated that on March 10, 1984,
upon entering the company's premises, Vega had the contents of his track
examined by the guard; that he prepared three (3) copies of the Incoming
Load Report (ILR), one copy for him, one copy for the guard, and one for
the files in a box; that the copy in the files listed five (5) cases of empty
bottles; that thereafter, when Vega entered the plant, the plant checker
examined his cargo and prepared two copies of checker slips, one copy for
the stock clerk and one for Vega; that once inside the plant, Vega
prepared his Route Sales Report (RSR) and turned over to the cashier and
finance officer the RSR, ILR and checker slips together with the cash
collection; that upon audit, it was discovered that while the ILR and
checker slips listed only five (5) cases of empty bottles, the RSR listed
fifteen (15) cases; that it was also learned that Vega's copy of the ILR and
checker slips were altered and also listed fifteen (15) cases; that due to
the discrepancy the company was defrauded in the amount of P100.00
more or [Link] chanrobles virtual law library
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. alleged that it cannot condone Vega's
acts because his job exposes him to financial transactions everyday. It
further averred that Vega's acts showed willful and malicious intent to
defraud the company and rendered him unworthy of its trust and
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
On July 24,1986, the Labor Arbiter found in favor of Vega. He ruled that
any error in the entries in the sales report was made unintentionally and
may probably be due to the sudden brown-out alleged by Vega. He opined
that the penalty of dismissal was too severe considering Vega's seven
years of dedicated service to the company. Thus, he ordered the company
to reinstate Vega to his former position and to pay him full and complete

backwages and other benefits at the rate of P2,280.00 a month until

reinstated, 10% attorney's fees and the amount of P5,000.00 as
transportation and other incidental [Link]
chanrobles virtual law library
On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, the decision was
modified. The NLRC was not convinced that the falsification was
unintentional. It further observed that under company rules, the infraction
calls for the penalty of dismissal. It, however, noted Vega's seven years of
service to the company and accordingly ordered his reinstatement with
only three (3) months [Link]
virtual law library
Both parties appealed from the decision. Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. filed its petition for review docketed as G.R. No.
82580 on April 6,1988 while Vega filed the present petition for
review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 84075 on April 21,
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
In a resolution dated October 17,1988, this Court ordered the two cases
consolidated considering that the subject matter and the issues involved
in the two cases emanated from the same decision of the NLRC. In
accordance with the Manifestation filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General for the respondent NLRC, the Comment filled in G.R. No. 82580 is
considered as the Comment required by this Court in G.R. No. 84075. We
treat the Comments as Answers and decide these petitions on their
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. alleges that the NLRC erred in ordering
Vega's reinstatement not withstanding its finding that falsification was
clearly committed by Vega. It contends that length of service does not
warrant an employee's reinstatement where there is a clear showing that
he committed acts constituting just causes of
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
On the other hand, Vega alleges that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in considering facts not alleged in the labor arbiters decision.
He further states that the NLRC erred in denying him full backwages in
spite of the fact that the labor arbiter clearly found that Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. committed an unfair labor
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
We rule in favor of Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. The NLRC's order of
reinstatement based on the sole ground of length of service does not find
support in either law or [Link]
chanrobles virtual law library
When adequately proven, the dual grounds of breach of trust and loss of
confidence constitute valid and ample bases to warrant termination of an

errant employee. (Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation v. Nuwhrain

(Ramada Chapter), 159 SCRA 212 [1988]). The employer's obligation to
give his workers just compensation and treatment carries with it the
corollary right to expect from the workers adequate work, diligence and
good conduct. (Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Phils. v. Lariosa, 148
SCRA 187 [1987]). In the last cited case, this Court held:
Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help workers and
employees continue with their employment or to mitigate the penalties
imposed on them, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property
are a different [Link] chanrobles virtual law
library
Thus under Article 283 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate an
employment for 'serious misconduct' or for fraud or willful breach by the
employee of the trust reposed in him by by his employer or
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
If there is sufficient evidence that an employee has been guilty of a
breach of trust or that his employer has ample reasons to distrust him, the
labor tribunal cannot justly deny to the employer. the authority to dismiss
such an employee.
There is no question that Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., is correct
when it states that Vega's position as a sales agent is of such a nature as
to require a substantial amount of trust and confidence on the part of the
employer. The work of a salesman exposes him to voluminous financial
transactions involving his employer's goods. The life of the softdrinks
company depends not so much on the bottling or production of the
product since this is primarily done by automatic machines and personnel
who are easily supervised but upon mobile and far ranging salesmen who
go from store to store all over the country or region. Salesmen are highly
individualistic personnel who have to be trusted and left essentially on
their own. A high degree of confidence is reposed in them when they are
entrusted with funds or properties of their
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in
terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who, while
not of similar rank, perform functions which by their nature require the
employer's full trust and confidence. This must be distinguished from the
case of ordinary rank-and-file employees, whose termination on the basis
of these same grounds requires a higher proof of involvement in the
events in question; mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by
the employer will not suffice. (See Manila Midtown Commercial
Corporation v. Nuwhrain (Ramada Chapter), supra). Thus, in the case of
San Miguel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission (142 SCRA 376,
384 [1986]), this Court held:

Private respondent represents petitioner in his dealings with the public.

When charges of theft of customer's properties and misconduct on the job
are imputed on the sales agent, and these charges are supported with
evidence, they constitute sufficient reasons for termination of
employment. Well established in our jurisprudence is the right of an
employer to dismiss an employee whose continuance in the service is
inimical to the employer's interest. (Manila Trading and Supply, Co. v.
Philippine Labor Union, 71 Phil. 124; Engineering Equipment, Inc. v. NLRC,
133 SCRA 752)
In this case, the employee's infraction was not his first offense. We note
that he was suspended and grounded for other offenses he committed in
1978. We regret, then, that this Court is powerless to extend to him the
remedy of reinstatement even on the ground of equity based on his length
of service. As this Court held in the case of Piedad v. Lanao del Norte
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (153 SCRA 500, 509 [1987]):
The precedents on the issue before us are clear. Dismissal of a dishonest
employee is to the best interest not only of management but also of labor
(International Hardwood and Veneer Co. of the Phils. v. Leogardo, Jr., 117
SCRA 967). As a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its
interest, a company has the right to dismiss its erring employees (Dole
Phils. Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra). An employer
cannot be compelled to continue in employment an employee guilty of
acts inimical to its interest, justifying loss of confidence in him
(International Hardwood and Veneer Co., of the Philippines v. Leogardo, Jr.
supra; National Service Corporation v. Leogardo, Jr. supra; Engineering
Equipment, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra). The law
does not impose unjust situations on either labor or management.
Because of the difference between the findings of the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC, we have examined this aspect of the petition carefully. We
affirm the NLRC conclusion that there was a clear falsification of
commercial documents in this case. The tampered documents in the
hands of Mr. Vega and presented to the cashier and finance officer showed
fifteen cases of soft drinks bottles while the earlier copies of the same
documents in the hands of the gate guard and the stock clerk and in the
flies reflected only five cases returned to the employer. There was no
brown-out yet when the "incoming load report" was given at the guard
house and the checker slip given to the stock clerk. It cannot be reason for
the discrepancy. Besides, why should a salesman prepare basic reports in
the dark? The tampering to reflect a bigger number of returns was
effected when the salesman presented his reports for the cashier and
finance officer. The allegation that the salesman would not risk his job for
such a small amount is not a defense because minor pilferages or thefts
carried on over a long period of time through false reports or juggling of
funds and properties may, as intended by the employee, remain
unnoticed but they would destroy the company nonetheless if unchecked
or tolerated. The Labor Arbiter is wrong; the NLRC is correct insofar as the

appreciation of facts is [Link] chanrobles

virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The dismissal of
petitioner Fernando Vega from his employment by Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Incorporated is AFFIRMED as valid and according to
[Link] chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.