vida - daabay vs. coca-cola

2
CASE TITLE: JEROME M. DAABAY vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. DATE: August 19, 2013 PONENTE: J. Reyes DIGEST BY: John Michael Vida TOPIC: Separation of Powers – The Role of the Judiciary FACTS: The case stems from an illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and ULP complaint filed by Daabay, a regular employee of Coca-Cola for 8 years, against the company. According to the case, Daabay’s employment was terminated on June 2005, on account of allegations in an affidavit from a certain Cesar Sorin, that Daabay was part of a “conspiracy” that allowed the pilferage of company property. Such losses were confirmed in an inventory and audit. Daabay was given a Notice to Explain with Preventive Suspension, and Daabay complied to said Notice, denying any participation in the alleged “conspiracy”. After a formal investigation, Coca-Cola found Daabay guilty of pilferage, serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence, and therefore dismissed Daabay through a Notice of Termination. Hence, Daabay filed of the complaint in the LA. LA: favored Daabay, ordered payment of backwages and separation pay instead of reinstatement. The LA found that Daabay’s participation in the “conspiracy” was not proven by substantial evidence. NLRC: reversed LA, found that there was a “reasonable and well- founded basis to dismiss [Daabay], not only for serious misconduct, but also for breach of trust or loss of confidence arising from such company losses.” However, NLRC still awarded retirement benefits in favor of Daabay, stating that there was a need “to humanize the severe effects of dismissal” and “tilt the scales of justice in favor of labor as a measure of equity and compassionate social justice.” CA: granted the writ of certiorari petitioned by Coca-Cola, and agreed with Coca- Cola in stating that the award of retirement benefits lacked basis considering that Daabay was dismissed for just cause. As a result of the CA decision, Daabay appealed to the SC. ISSUE/S: WON Daabay may “revive” the issue of WON his dismissal had factual and legal bases despite the assailed CA decision being confined only to the issue of WON Daabay was entitled to retirement benefits as granted. [This was because Daabay included in his plea to the SC an affirmation of the LA’s Decision, with the modification to include: (a) his allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent in the computation of his backwages; (b) his actual reinstatement; and (c) damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.] HELD: NO. Petition of Daabay was denied. RATIO: The Court first took note of the fact that the appeal was brought to the CA not by Daabay, but by Coca-Cola, and was limited to the issue of WON retirement

Upload: john-michael-vida

Post on 17-Aug-2015

43 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Digest for the case of Daabay vs. Coca-Cola

TRANSCRIPT

CASE TITLE: JEROME M. DAABAY vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. DATE: August 19, 201PONENTE: J. R!"!sDI#EST BY: J$%& M'(%)!* +',)TOPIC: S!-).)t'$& $/ P$0!.s 1 T%! R$*! $/ t%! Ju,'(')."2ACTS:T%! ()s! st!3s /.$3 )& '**!g)* ,'s3'ss)*, '**!g)* sus-!&s'$& )&, 4LP ($3-*)'&t 5*!, 6" D))6)",).!gu*).!3-*$"!!$/C$()-C$*)/$.7"!).s, )g)'&stt%!($3-)&". A(($.,'&gt$t%!()s!,D))6)"8s !3-*$"3!&t 0)s t!.3'&)t!, $& Ju&! 2009, $& )(($u&t $/ )**!g)t'$&s '& )& ):,)v't/.$3 ) (!.t)'& C!s). S$.'&, t%)t D))6)" 0)s -).t $/ ) ;($&s-'.)("< t%)t )**$0!, t%! -'*/!.)g!$/ ($3-)&" -.$-!.t". Su(% *$ss!s 0!.! ($&5.3!, '& )& '&v!&t$." )&, )u,'t. D))6)" 0)s g'v!&) N$t'(! t$ E=-*)'& 0't% P.!v!&t'v! Sus-!&s'$&, )&, D))6)" ($3-*'!, t$ s)', N$t'(!, ,!&"'&g)&"-).t'('-)t'$&'&t%!)**!g!,;($&s-'.)("!, 6)s's ($&s',!.'&g t%)t D))6)" 0)s ,'s3'ss!, /$.Cust ()us!.As ) .!su*t $/ t%! CA ,!('s'$&, D))6)" )--!)*!, t$ t%! SC. ISS4EES:FON D))6)" 3)" ;.!v'v!< t%! 'ssu! $/ FON %'s ,'s3'ss)* %), /)(tu)* )&, *!g)* 6)s!s ,!s-'t!t%!)ss)'*!,CA,!('s'$&6!'&g($&5&!,$&*"t$t%!'ssu!$/ FOND))6)"0)s!&t't*!,t$.!t'.!3!&t 6!&!5ts )s g.)&t!,. ?This was because Daabay included in his plea to the SC an afrmation of the LAs Decision,withthemodifcationtoinclude: a! hisallowancesandother beneftsor their monetarye"ui#alent in the computation of his bac$wa%es& b! his actual reinstatement& and c!dama%es, attorneys fees and liti%ation e'penses.@HELD:NO. P!t't'$& $/ D))6)" 0)s ,!&'!,.RATIO:T%! C$u.t 5.st t$$> &$t! $/ t%! /)(t t%)t t%! )--!)* 0)s 6.$ug%t t$ t%! CA &$t 6" D))6)", 6ut6" C$()-C$*), )&, 0)s *'3't!, t$ t%! 'ssu! $/ FON .!t'.!3!&t 6!&!5ts 0!.! -.$-!. '& D))6)"8s()s!. T%! ($..!(t&!ss $/ t%! NLRC8s ,!('s'$& $& D))6)"8s ,'s3'ss)* 0)s )*.!)," 6!"$&, t%!)--!**)t! ($u.t8s )ut%$.'t" t$ 3$,'/". C't'&gAndaya#( )L*C,t%!C$u.t !3-%)s'A!,t%)t )-).t"0%$%)s&$t )--!)*!,/.$3),!('s'$& 3)" &$t $6t)'& )&" ):.3)t'v! .!*'!/ /.$3 t%! )--!**)t! ($u.t $t%!. t%)& 0%)t %! %),$6t)'&!, /.$3 t%! *$0!. ($u.t, '/ )&", 0%$s! ,!('s'$& 's 6.$ug%t u- $& )--!)*. A*s$, t%!C$u.t ('t!,+ano#( Sanche,,st)t'&gt%)t t%!!&t.!&(%!,-.$(!,u.)* .u*!'&t%'sCu.'s,'(t'$& 's t%)t ) -).t" 0%$ ,', &$t )--!)* ()&&$t )ss'g& su(% !..$.s )s ).! ,!s'g&!, t$%)v! t%! Cu,g3!&t 3$,'5!,. A** t%)t %! ()& ,$ 's t$ 3)>! ) ($u&t!.-)ss'g&3!&t $/ !..$.s $. t$).gu! $& 'ssu!s .)'s!, 6!*$0 $&*" /$. t%! -u.-$s! $/ sust)'&'&g t%! Cu,g3!&t '& %'s /)v$.. Du! -.$(!ss -.!v!&ts t%! g.)&t $/ ),,'t'$&)* )0).,s t$ -).t'!s 0%$ ,', &$t )--!)*. C$&s',!.'&gt%)tD))6)"%),&$t"!t)--!)*!,/.$3t%!NLRC8sR!s$*ut'$&t$t%!CA, %'s-*!)/$.t%!3$,'5()t'$& $/ t%! NLRC8s 5&,'&gs 0)s t%!& 3's-*)(!,. T%! C$u.t %!*, t%)t '/ 't 0!.! t$ .!v'!0)** 3)tt!.s t%)t ).! .)'s!, '& t%! -!t't'$&, 't 0$u*, 6)s'()**" t$*!.)t! 0%)t D))6)" 0)s 6)..!,t$ ,$ 6!/$.! t%! )--!**)t! ($u.t. D))6)" Cust'5!s %'s -*!) /$. .!*'!/ 6" st)t'&g t%)t %! %)s )*s$ 5*!, ) su6s!Du!&t MR $/ t%!NLRC8s R!s$*ut'$&, 6ut t%! s)3! 0)s &$t )(t!, u-$& 6" t%! NLRC. T%! C$u.t %!*,, %$0!v!.,t%)t t%! )**!g)t'$& 0)s st'** '&su:('!&t t$ )**$0 %'3 t$ '&s!.t %'s -*!) /$. .!*'!/s )*$&gs',! t%!)ss)'*!, CA ,!('s'$&. D))6)" 0)s )*s$ &$t!, t$ %)v! /)'*!, t$ '&s!.t t%! MR 0%'(% %! )**!g!,*"5*!, 0't% t%! NLRC )&, s!!> NLRC8s .!s$*ut'$& $& t%! 3)tt!. !v!& t%$ug% 2 "!).s %)v! -)ss!,0't%$ut t%! MR 6!'&g u&.!s$*v!,. Ev!& g.)&t'&g t%)t t%! MR 0)s 5*!, 0't% t%! NLRC, t%! SC &$t!, t%)t t%! NLRC s%)** 5.st 6!g'v!& t%! $--$.tu&'t" t$ .!v'!0 'ts 5&,'&gs )&, .u*'&gs $& t%! 'ssu! $/ t%! *!g)*'t" $/ D))6)"8s,'s3'ss)*, )&, t%!& ($..!(t t%!3 s%$u*, 't 5&, t%)t 't !..!, '& 'ts ,'s-$s't'$&. T%! SC ()&&$t, 6"t%'s -!t't'$&, -.!-!3-t t%! )(t'$& 0%'(% t%! NLRC, )&, t%! CA '& ()s! $/ )& )--!)*, 3)" t)>!$& t%! 3)tt!.. ?)-T.: / did not discuss the labor retirement! aspect of the case as it was not rele#ant to thetopic at hand( 0lease refer to the full ori%inal case for the SCs discussion on the non1eli%ibilityof Daabay for retirement pay(@