DAABAY v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC.

Coca-Cola filed an MR to assail the award of retirement

G.R. No. 199890 August 19, 2013 benefits. The NLRC explained that there as a need “to
Just cause humanize the severe effects of dismissal” and “tilt the scales of
justice in favor of labor as a measure of equity and
Facts: The case stems from a complaint for illegal dismissal, compassionate social justice.” The CA, however, agreed with
illegal suspension, unfair labor practice and monetary claims Coca-Cola, claiming that the award of retirement benefits
filed by Daabay against Coca-Cola and three officers of said lacked basis considering that Daabay was dismissed for just
company. The records indicate that the employment of Daabay cause.
with Coca-Cola as Sales Logistics Checker was terminated by
the company in June 2005, following receipt of information Issue: Is Daabay entitled to the retirement benefits that were
from one Cesar Sorin that Daabay was part of a conspiracy that awarded by the NLRC?
allowed the pilferage of company property, which comprised
of cases of assorted softdrinks, empty bottles, missing shells, Ruling: No.
and missing pallets valued at P20,860,913.
In Andaya v. NLRC, the Court emphasized that a party who
Daabay submitted an Explanation, denying any participation in has not appealed from a decision may not obtain any
the reported pilferage. A formal investigation on the matter affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he
ensued. had obtained from the lower court, if any, whose decision is
brought up on appeal. Further, as explained in Yano v.
Eventually, Coca-Cola served upon Daabay a Notice of Sanchez, the entrenched procedural rule in this jurisdiction is
Termination that cited pilferage, serious misconduct and loss that a party who did not appeal cannot assign such errors as are
of trust and confidence as grounds. At the time of the designed to have the judgment modified. All that he can do is
dismissal, Daabay had been a regular employee of Coca-Cola make a counter-assignment of errors or to argue on issues
for eight years, and was receiving a monthly pay of raised below only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment in
P20,861.00, exclusive of other benefits. his favor. Due process prevents the grant of additional awards
to parties who did not appeal.
Daabay then filed the subject labor complain against Coca-
Cola and Roberto Huang, Raymund Salvador, and Alvin Daabay had not yet appealed from the NLRC’s Resolution to
Garcia, who were the President and Plant Logistic Managers, CA. Therefore, his plea for modification is misplaced.
respectively of Coca-Cola at the time of the dispute. The
Executive Labor Arbiter Augusto Magbanua rendered his Even limiting the review to the lone issue in the assailed CA
Decision in favor of Daabay. He ruled that Daabay was decision and resolution, the Court finds no cogent reason to
illegally dismissed because his participation in the alleged reverse the ruling of the CA. Daabay was declared by the
conspiracy was not proved by substantial evidence. In lieu of NLRC to have been lawfully dismissed by Coca-Cola on
reinstatement and considering the already unstrained relations grounds of serious misconduct, breach of trust and loss of
between the parties, ELA Magbanua ordered the payment to confidence. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court
Daabay of back wages and separation pay or retirement held that despite being qualified for retirement at the time of
benefits, as may be applicable. her lawful dismissal, the fact remains that she was already
terminated for cause thereby rendering nugatory any
Dissatisfied, Coca-Cola and the three officers appealed from entitlement to mandatory or optional retirement pay that she
ELA Magbanua’s Decision to the NLRC. Daabay filed a might have previously possessed.
separate appeal to ask for his reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights, the payment of back wages instead of Moreover, in ruling against the grant of retirement benefits, the
separation pay or retirement benefits, and an award of litigation Court, citing the case of PLDT v. NLRC, has ruled, time and
expenses and damages and attorney’s fees. again, that financial assistance or whatever name it is called, as
a measure of social justice is allowed only in instances where
The NLRC reversed the finding of illegal dismissal, claiming the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious
that there was “reasonable and well-founded basis to dismiss misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.
Daabay not only for serious misconduct, but also for breach of
trust or loss of confidence arising from such company losses.” Clearly, as Daabay was dismissed on the grounds of serious
Daabay’s participation according to this Court was sufficiently misconduct, breach off trust and loss of confidence, the award
established by the documents signed by Daabay. The NLRC based on equity was unwarranted. And although retirement
also found fault in Daabay for his failure to detect the benefits, where not mandated by law, may still be granted by
pilferage, which was included in his responsibilities as Sales agreement of the employees and their employer or as a
Logistics Checker. Notwithstanding its ruling on the legality of voluntary act of the employer, there is no proof that any of
the dismissal, the NLRC awarded retirement benefits in favor these incidents were attendant in the instant case.
of Daabay.