G.R. No. 170454 October 11, 2012 Subject Matter: Illegal Dismissal, Managerial Employees

G.R. No.
170454
October 11, 2012
Subject Matter: Illegal Dismissal, Managerial Employees
Facts: Petitioners were part of the team tasked to open a new Jollibee branch at Festival
Mall, Level 4, in Alabang, Muntinlupa City on December 12, 2000. In preparation for the
opening of the new branch, petitioner Cruz requested the Commissary Warehouse and
Distribution (commissary) for the delivery of wet and frozen goods on December 9, 2000
to comply with the 30-day thawing process of the wet goods, particularly the Jollibee
product called Chickenjoy.
On December 23, 2000, 450 packs of Chickenjoy were delivered and petitioners placed
them in the freezer. On December 26, 2000, petitioner Cruz thawed the 450 packs of
Chickenjoy (ten pieces in each pack), or 4,500 pieces of Chickenjoy, in time for the branch
opening on December 28, 2000.
The shelf life of the Chickenjoy is 25 days from the time it is marinated; and, once thawed,
it should be served on the third day. Its shelf life cannot go beyond three days from
thawing. After that, the remaining Chickenjoy products are no longer served, and they are
packed in plastic, ten pieces in each pack, and placed in a garbage bag to be stored in
the freezer. Within the period provided for in the company policy, valid Chickenjoy rejects
are usually returned to the commissary, while rejects which are unreturnable are wasted
and disposed of properly.
In January 2001, petitioner Cruz attempted to return 150 pieces of Chickenjoy rejects to
the commissary, but the driver of the commissary refused to accept them due to the
discoloration and deteriorated condition of the Chickenjoy rejects, and for fear that the
rejects may be charged against him. Thus, the Chickenjoy rejects were returned to the
freezer.
During the first week of March 2001, the team of petitioners had a meeting on what to do
with the stored Chickenjoy rejects. They decided to soak and clean the Chickenjoy rejects
in soda water and segregate the valid rejects from the wastes.
On April 2, 2001, petitioner Cruz was transferred to another Jollibee branch. She failed
to make the proper indorsement as the area manager directed her to report immediately
to her new assignment.
On May 3, 2001, the area manager, Divina Evangelista, visited four stores, including the
subject Jollibee branch. When Evangelista arrived, she saw petitioner Peano cleaning
the Chickenjoy rejects. Evangelista told petitioner Manese to dispose of the Chickenjoy
rejects, but Manese replied that they be allowed to find a way to return them to the
Commissary.
On May 8, 2001, Evangelista required petitioners Cruz and Manese to submit an incident
report on the Chickenjoy rejects. Evangelista issued a memorandum with a charge sheet,
requiring petitioners to explain in writing within 48 hours from receipt why they should not
be meted the appropriate penalty under the respondent company's Code of Discipline for
extremely serious misconduct, gross negligence, product tampering, fraud or falsification
of company records and insubordination in connection with their findings that 2,130
pieces of Chickenjoy rejects were kept inside the walk-in freezer, which could cause
product contamination and threat to food safety.
Thereafter, respondents Human Resource Manager Sylvia Mariano, Operations Manager

Elizabeth dela Cruz, and Atty. Rey Montoya, lawyer for corporate affairs, conducted an
administrative hearing on the incident. The Investigating Committee sent petitioners a
Memorandum on its administrative findings and decision, and the said memorandum
notified her that she was terminated from employment due to loss of trust and confidence.
Petitioners filed a Complaint against respondents for illegal dismissal with a claim for
separation pay, retirement benefits, illegal deduction, unfair labor practice, damages, non-
payment of maternity leave, non-payment of last salary, non-payment of sick leave and
release of cooperative contributions and damages and attorney's fees. Petitioners further
argued that there was no product contamination, as the rejects were packed by tens and
wrapped in plastic, placed in garbage bags, then placed in a crate before being stored in
the freezer.
Jollibee contended that there was no illegal dismissal, as petitioners were dismissed for
gross negligence and/or incompetence, and for breach of trust and confidence reposed
in them as managerial employees.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of facts when it
affirmed the legal dismissal of Petitioners on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
Held: The mere existence of a basis for the loss of trust and confidence justifies the
dismissal of the managerial employee because when an employee accepts a promotion
to a managerial position or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, such employee
gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers.Infractions, which if
committed by others would be overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated, may be
visited with more severe disciplinary action. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required provided there is a valid reason for the loss of trust and confidence, such as
when the employer has a reasonable ground to believe that the managerial employee
concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct and the nature of his participation
renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.
However, the right of the management to dismiss must be balanced against the
managerial employees right to security of tenure which is not one of the guaranties he
gives up. This Court has consistently ruled that managerial employees enjoy security of
tenure and, although the standards for their dismissal are less stringent, the loss of trust
and confidence must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to
warrant the managerial employees separation from the company. Substantial evidence
is of critical importance and the burden rests on the employer to prove it.
In this case, the acts and omissions enumerated in the respective memorandum with
notice of termination of petitioners were valid bases for their termination, which was
grounded on gross negligence and/or loss of trust and confidence.

G.R. No. 170454 October 11, 2012 Subject Matter: Illegal Dismissal, Managerial Employees

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 170454 October 11, 2012 Subject Matter: Illegal Dismissal, Managerial Employees

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 170454 October 11, 2012 Subject Matter: Illegal Dismissal, Managerial Employees

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

Subject Matter: Illegal Dismissal, Managerial Employees

Thereafter, respondents Human Resource Manager Sylvia Mariano, Operations Manager

You might also like