1. Salas was dismissed from his job as a material controller at Aboitiz for running out of supplies needed by the company. He claimed the dismissal was illegal.
2. The NLRC initially ruled in favor of Salas, finding his actions did not amount to gross negligence or willful breach of trust. However, the CA reversed and found Salas guilty of serious misconduct and neglect of duty.
3. The Supreme Court then reversed the CA, finding Salas' actions were merely simple negligence and did not warrant termination. They ordered his reinstatement with backpay, though modified the backpay amount as Salas was not entirely without fault.
1. Salas was dismissed from his job as a material controller at Aboitiz for running out of supplies needed by the company. He claimed the dismissal was illegal.
2. The NLRC initially ruled in favor of Salas, finding his actions did not amount to gross negligence or willful breach of trust. However, the CA reversed and found Salas guilty of serious misconduct and neglect of duty.
3. The Supreme Court then reversed the CA, finding Salas' actions were merely simple negligence and did not warrant termination. They ordered his reinstatement with backpay, though modified the backpay amount as Salas was not entirely without fault.
1. Salas was dismissed from his job as a material controller at Aboitiz for running out of supplies needed by the company. He claimed the dismissal was illegal.
2. The NLRC initially ruled in favor of Salas, finding his actions did not amount to gross negligence or willful breach of trust. However, the CA reversed and found Salas guilty of serious misconduct and neglect of duty.
3. The Supreme Court then reversed the CA, finding Salas' actions were merely simple negligence and did not warrant termination. They ordered his reinstatement with backpay, though modified the backpay amount as Salas was not entirely without fault.
, and SABIN ABOITIZ G.R. No. 178236. June 27, 2008
FACTS: slight care acting or omitting to act in a situation
Salas was a material controller of Aboitiz, and where there is a duty to act, willfully and was tasked with monitoring and maintaining the intentionally with a conscious indifference to availability and supply of Quickbox needed by consequence, Salas could not be held guilty, Aboitiz in its day-to-day operations. On June 4, having done his duty to make proper requisition 2003, Salas had run out of Large Quickbox, in advance. Failure to follow-up is not an hampering Aboitiz’ business operation. indicator of remission of duty. Salas can only be Aboitiz then wrote Salas a memorandum guilty of negligence, for failing to properly requiring him to explain in writing why he should monitor and document the stocks in his not be disciplinarily dealt with for his (i) failure to custody. As he admitted during the monitor the stock level of Large Quickbox which administrative hearing, there were those which led to inventory stock out; and (ii) failure to were even missing. Worst, he tampered the report to his immediate superior the Large records to show that the stock on 31 May 2003 Quickbox problem when the stock level was is for 02 June 2003. While there was no already critical, when the Large Quickbox level intention to defraud the company. The NLRC was near stock out, and the stock level had a thus denied his prayer for backwages, and stock out. ordered the payment of separation pay instead An administrative hearing was conducted to of reinstatement give Salas opportunity to explain his side. Aboitiz filed a motion for reconsideration, while Twenty-two days after, Aboitiz sent him a Salas sought partial reconsideration of the decision notice, terminating him for loss of trust decision, both of which were denied by the and confidence. NLRC. Salas then requested for a reconsideration of Salas and Aboitiz filed petitions for certiorari the decision through a letter, asking if he could with the CA. Salas questioned the denial of instead avail of the early retirement plan, having his prayer. Aboitiz questioned NLRC's reversal. worked for Aboitiz for ten years already. He The CA sustained Salas' dismissal, holding that also asked to be allowed to tender his Salas was guilty of (1) serious misconduct for resignation instead of being terminated. Lastly, tampering the records to show that the stock on he asked to be employed until the end of the May 31 2003 was for June 2 2003; (2) gross month, so as to have enough time to look for and habitual neglect as the NLRC no less another job. admits that “for the nth time” Salas repeatedly However, the request for early retirement plan “demonstrated laxity in the performance of his was denied, stating that the company's table of duty and (3) willful breach of the trust reposed discipline provided the penalty of dismissal for on Salas by Aboitiz, because as the offenses he had committed. The extension, "warehouseman", and therefore a confidential however, was granted, and even extended for a employee, Salas concededly month. tampered company records to hide his gross Claiming termination without cause, Salas filed and habitual neglect, and worse, sold the with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against company’s eight units of used air-conditioners Aboitiz for illegal dismissal with prayer for without authority. reinstatement, and for payment of full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, as ISSUE: Whether on a mere single and simple well as attorney’s fees. negligence can be a basis for dismissal on ground Aboitiz responded that there was valid of loss of trust and confidence. termination, asserting that Salas was dismissed for just cause and with due process, Salas RULING: Salas was terminated for neglect of duty having willfully breached his duty when he ran and willful breach of trust. Gross negligence out of Large Quickbox, justifying the termination connotes want or absence of or failure to exercise of his employment. slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of Labor Arbiter sustained Salas' dismissal. care. To warrant removal from service, the On appeal, the NLRC reversed. Gross negligence should not merely be gross, but also negligence being characterized by want of even habitual. Although it was Salas' duty to monitor and maintain the availability and supply of Quickbox, records show that Salas had made a requisition as early as May 21, 2003, even making several follow- ups. If there is anything that Salas can be faulted for, it is his failure to promptly inform his immediate supervisor of the non-delivery of the requisitioned items. Nevertheless, such failure did not amount to gross neglect of duty or to willful breach of trust, which would justify his dismissal from service.
Moreover, there appears nothing to suggest that
Salas’ position was a highly or even primarily confidential position, so that he can be removed for loss of trust and confidence by the employer. A "position of trust and confidence” is one where a person is "entrusted with confidence on delicate matters," or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer’s property. In the records of the case, there is no semblance of willful breach of trust on the part of Salas. It is true that there was erasure or alteration on the bin card. Aboitiz, however, failed to demonstrate that it was done to cover up Salas’ alleged negligence. Other than the bin card and Aboitiz’s barefaced assertion, no other evidence was offered to prove the alleged cover- up.
Aboitiz’s reliance on the past offenses of Salas for
his eventual dismissal is likewise unavailing. The correct rule has always been that such previous offenses may be used as valid justification for dismissal from work only if the infractions are related to the subsequent offense upon which the basis of termination is decreed. While it is true that Salas had been suspended on for failure to meet the security requirements of the company, and for his failure to assist in the loading at the fuel depot, such offenses are not related to Salas’ latest infraction, hence, cannot be used as added justification for the dismissal.
Undoubtedly, no just cause exists to warrant Salas’
dismissal. Consequently, he is entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights, and to payment of backwages. However, the award of backwages is modified because Salas was not entirely faultless. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Aboitiz One, Inc. is ordered to REINSTATE Oligario Salas to his former position without loss of seniority rights, with payment of backwages computed up to the time of reinstatement.