Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 121035 April 12, 2000
RUFINO NORBERTO F. SAMSON, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SCHERING-PLOUGH
CORPORATION, LEO RICONALLA !" #OSE L. ESTINGOR, respondents.

$APUNAN, J.:
Throuh this petition for certiorari, Rufino Norberto F. Sa!son "#petitioner#$ assails the
Decision, dated %& March %''(, of the National )abor Relations *o!!ission in the
consolidated cases of N)R* N*R+,,+,%+,,-(.+'/ and N)R* N*R+,,+,.+,,00&+'/.
Petitioner li1e2ise assails the Resolution, dated %, Ma3 %''(, of the N)R* den3in his
!otion for reconsideration.
The assailed decision of the N)R* reversed and set aside the Decision, dated .(
4uust %''/, of )abor 4rbiter Ricardo *. Nora findin respondent Scherin+Plouh
*orporation "#respondent co!pan3#$ uilt3 of illeal dis!issal and orderin it to
reinstate petitioner to his for!er position as District Sales Manaer and to pa3 hi!
bac12aes.
4s culled fro! the decisions of the labor arbiter and the N)R*, the facts of the case are
as follo2s5
This pertains to the case "N*R+,,+,%+,,-(.+'/$ filed b3 the co!plainant Rufino
Norberto F. Sa!son aainst the respondents Scherin 6 Plouh. *orp. "#SP*# for
brevit3$ and Mr. )eo *. Riconalla, National Sales Manaer, for !one3 e7uivalent of rice
subsid3 for the period 4pril %'', to Dece!ber %''. and holida3 pa3, no2 dee!ed
sub!itted for resolution based on records available.
On Februar3 %, %''/, said co!plainant filed another case "N*R+,,+,.+,,00&+'/$ for
illeal preventive suspension raffled to the 8onorable )abor 4rbiter Donato 9. :uinto,
;r. and consolidated to the above case nu!ber.
)i1e2ise, on Februar3 /, %''/, co!plainant filed a Motion to 4!end *o!plaint and
averred pertinentl3 that #. . . co!plainant 2as placed under an indefinite preventive
suspension on .( ;anuar3 %''/#< and #. . . 2as arbitraril3 and su!!aril3 ter!inated
fro! e!plo3!ent on ,= Februar3 %''/ on round of loss of confidence.#
4s culled fro! the records of the instant case, 2hat reall3 precipitated co!plainant>s
preventive suspension cul!inatin to his dis!issal is "sic$ the incident that too1 place
on Dece!ber %&, %''= as leaned fro! the e?chane of letters@!e!oranda fro! both
parties.
In a letter dated .( ;anuar3 %''/ "4nne? #4#$ addressed to the co!plainant Mr.
Sa!son sined b3 one ;.). Astinor, the latter called the attention of "sic$ the
co!plainant>s conduct #. . . in a !anner ini!ical to the interests of SP*# and
enu!erated the follo2in acts co!!itted b3 the co!plainant< to 2it5
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
%. On or about 17 December 1993, during the Sales and Marketing Christmas
gathering, you made utterances of obscene, insulting, and offensive words, referring to
or direct against SC!s Management Committee, in the "resence of several co#
em"loyees.
.. On that sa!e occasion, and aain in the presence of several co+e!plo3ees, you
uttered obscene, insulting and offensive words, and made malicious and lewd gesture,
all of 2hich referred to or 2ere directed aainst Mr. Apitacio D. Titon, ;r. President and
9eneral Manaer of SP*.
=. 4lso on that sa!e occasion, 3ou repeated 3our !alicious utterances and threatened
to disrupt or other2ise create violence durin SP*>s forthco!in National Sales
*onference, and enBoined 3our co+e!plo3ees not to prepare for the said conference.
/. Subse7uentl3, on or about 3 $anuary 199%, you re"eated your threats to some co#
em"loyees, advising them to watch out for some disru"tive actions to ha""en during the
&ational Sales Conference. "A!phasis ours$
*o!plainant 2as iven t2o ".$ da3s fro! receipt of the foreoin letter and to+e?plain #.
. . 2h3 no disciplinar3 action, includin ter!ination#, should be ta1en aainst the
co!plainant and in the !eanti!e 2as placed on preventive suspension effective
i!!ediatel3, until further notice.
*o!plainant on the ver3 sa!e date .( ;anuar3 %''/ and in repl3 to the above+
!entioned letter@!e!o "4nne? #C#$ 2rote an e?planation statin5
1
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Relative to the said !e!o I 2ould li1e to cateoricall3 state the follo2in facts5
%. That the act"s$ alluded in the !e!o, specificall3 pararaphDsE % and ., 2hich alleed
that I uttered obscene, insultin and offensive 2ords is not true. 'f ever ' ha""ened to
utter such words it was made in reference to the decision taken by the management
committee on the Cua (im case and not to an3 particular or specific person"s$ as
stated in the !e!o.
.. I be to disaree 2ith the state!ent !ade in Pararaphs = and / of the sa!e !e!o
as I den3 to have uttered !uch less threaten to create violence and disrupt the holdin
of the National Sales *onference5
Finall3, I a! lodin a for!al protest for bein placed under preventive suspension it
bein contrar3 to the !e!o 2hich ave !e t2o ".$ da3s 2ithin 2hich to e?plain !3
position before an3 disciplinar3 action could be initiated. I believe that the pre+e!pted
i!position of the preventive suspension is not onl3 arbitrar3 but is violative of !3
constitutional #riht to due process#.
Sub!itted for 3our infor!ation. "A!phasis ours$
4ain, on ;anuar3 .&, %''/, co!plainant 2rote a letter "4nne? #*#$ addressed to Mr.
;.). Astinor, 8RD Manaer, 2hich in part reads5
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Cein a staff "DSM$ assined in the field I seldo! sta3 in the office e?cept on e?tre!e
necessit3 or 2hen !3 presence is re7uired. Fnder such situation !3 continued
e!plo3!ent 2ill not in an3 2a3 poses DsicE serious or i!!inent threat to the life and
propert3 of the co!pan3 as 2ell as !3 co+e!plo3ees. The preventive suspension
!eted out aainst !e is not onl3 abusive, arbitrar3 but indiscri!inatel3 applied under
the uise of !anaerial preroative but violative of !3 riht under the la2.
I trust that !3 i!!ediate reinstate!ent 2ill be acted upon 2ithout an3 further dela3.
In a letter dated Februar3 =, %''/, respondent SP* thru Mr. ;.). Astinor, 2rote a letter
"4nne? #D#$ to the co!plainant Mr. Sa!son, the dispositive part of 2hich reads as
follo2s5
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
In vie2 of the foreoin, notice is hereb3 iven that 3our e!plo3!ent fro! Scherin
Plouh *orporation is ter!inated effective at the close of business hours of = Februar3
%''/.
Ge reiterate our previous directive for 3ou to turn over the service vehicle, all !one3,
docu!ents, records and other propert3 in 3our possession or custod3 to the National
Sales Manaer. Please co!pl3 2ith this directive i!!ediatel3.
%
On the basis of the pleadins filed b3 the parties and evidence on record, the labor
arbiter rendered his Decision, dated .( 4uust %''/, declarin the dis!issal of
petitioner illeal. The labor arbiter ruled that petitioner>s conduct is not so serious as to
2arrant his dis!issal because5 %$ the alleed offensive 2ords 2ere uttered durin an
infor!al and unofficial et+toether of e!plo3ees 2here there 2as social drin1in and
petitioner 2as alread3 tips3< .$ the 2ords 2ere uttered to sho2 disapproval over
!anae!ent>s decision on the #*ua )i!# case< =$ the penalt3 for the offense is onl3
#verbal re!inder# under respondent co!pan3>s rules and reulations< and /$ petitioner
2as alread3 ad!onished durin a !eetin on / ;anuar3 %''/. 4ccordinl3, respondent
co!pan3 2as ordered to reinstate petitioner as District Sales Manaer and to pa3 hi!
bac12aes.
.
Coth parties appealed said decision to the N)R*. Petitioner filed a partial appeal of the
denial of his clai! for holida3 pa3 and the cash e7uivalent of the rice subsid3. For its
part, respondent co!pan3 souht the reversal of the decision of the labor arbiter
allein that the latter erred in rulin that petitioner>s e!plo3!ent 2as ter!inated
2ithout valid cause and in orderin his reinstate!ent.
In reversin the labor arbiter>s decision, the N)R* found that there 2as Bust cause, i.e),
ross !isconduct, for petitioner>s dis!issal. The N)R* !ade the follo2in dis7uisition,
thus5
It is 2ell established in the records that co!plainant !ade insultin and obscene
utterances directed at the respondent co!pan3>s !anae!ent co!!ittee in the
presence of several e!plo3ees. 4ain, he directed his verbal abuse aainst 9eneral
Manaer and President Apitacio D. Titon, ;r. b3 utterin #Si ADT, bullshit 3an#,
#sabihin !o 1a3 ADT 3an#< and #sabihin !o 1a3 ADT, bullshit 3an# 2hile esturin and
!a1in the #dirt3 finer# sin. "pae &, Decision$ These utterances 2ere !ade b3 the
co!plainant in DaE loud !anner. "4ffidavit of )eo *. Riconalla, 4nne? #%#, of
respondents> position paper$ 8e 2as further accused of threatenin to disrupt
respondents> national sales conference b3 tellin Ms. 4nita ValdeHco that the
conference 2ill be a #ver3 blood3 one.# "Respondents> position paper$
Ge consider the foreoin actuations of the co!plainant as constitutin ross
!isconduct, sufficient to Bustif3 respondents in ter!inatin his services. The actuation
2
of the co!plainant is destructive of the !orals of his co+e!plo3ees and, therefore, his
continuance in the position of District Sales Manaer 2ould be patentl3 ini!ical to the
respondent co!pan3>s interest.1*w"hi1)n+t
*o!plainant is a !anaerial e!plo3ee as he is a District Sales Manaer. 4s such, his
position carries the hihest deree of responsibilit3 in i!provin and upholdin the
interests of the e!plo3er and in e?e!plif3in the ut!ost standard of discipline and ood
conduct a!on his+co+e!plo3ees. "Top For! Mf. Inc., vs. N)R*, .%0 S*R4 =%=$ In
ter!inatin the e!plo3!ent of !anaerial e!plo3ees, the e!plo3er is allo2ed a 2ider
latitude of discretion than in the case of ordinar3 ran1+and+file e!plo3ee. "4urelio vs.
N)R*, et al), 9.R. '',=/, 4pril %., %''=$
=
Preli!inaril3, 2e find it necessar3 to resolve the procedural issues raised b3 respondent
co!pan3 in its *o!!ent "2ith Motion for *larification$, dated - Septe!ber %''(.
Respondent co!pan3 harped on the fact that the caption of the petition did not include
the doc1et nu!bers of the cases before the N)R* in violation of Supre!e *ourt
*ircular .0+'%. Ge do not find this o!ission fatal as the pertinent doc1et nu!bers had
been set out in the first and second paes of the petition. The sa!e constitutes
substantial co!pliance 2ith the re7uire!ent of the la2.
Respondent co!pan3 further opined that the petition should be su!!aril3 dis!issed as
the decision had beco!e final and e?ecutor3 citin Section %%/, Rule VII and Section .
"b$, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the N)R*. This contention is li1e2ise
untenable. 4s an oriinal action for certiorari, the petition 2as !erel3 re7uired to be filed
2ithin a reasonable ti!e fro! receipt of a cop3 of the 7uestioned decision or resolution.
/
Fnder the rules then in effect at the ti!e of the filin of the instant petition, a period of
three "=$ !onths 2as considered to be #reasonable ti!e#.
(
In this case, petitioner
received a cop3 of the assailed N)R* decision on .( 4pril %''(. 8e filed a !otion for
reconsideration on .& 4pril %''( but it 2as denied b3 the N)R* in its assailed
resolution, a cop3 of 2hich 2as received b3 petitioner on % ;ul3 %''(. The instant
petition 2as filed t2ent3+seven ".&$ da3s after said receipt or on .0 ;ul3 %''(. *learl3,
the instant petition 2as filed 2ell 2ithin the rele!entar3 period provided b3 la2.
8avin settled that, 2e no2 address the substantive issue involved in this case, i.e),
2hether the N)R* acted 2ith rave abuse of discretion a!ountin to lac1 or e?cess of
Burisdiction in reversin the decision of the labor arbiter and rulin that petitioner 2as
validl3 dis!issed.
Ge rule in favor of petitioner.
The issue of 2hether petitioner 2as validl3 dis!issed is a factual one and enerall3,
factual findins of the N)R* are accorded respect. In this case, ho2ever, there is
co!pellin reason to deviate fro! this salutar3 principle because the findins of facts of
the N)R* are in conflict 2ith that of the labor arbiter. 4ccordinl3, this *ourt !ust of
necessit3 revie2 the records to deter!ine 2hich findins should be preferred as !ore
confor!able to the evidentiar3 facts.
-
To constitute valid dis!issal, t2o ".$ re7uisites !ust be !et5 "%$ the dis!issal !ust be
for an3 of the causes e?pressed in 4rticle .0. of the )abor *ode< and ".$ the e!plo3ee
!ust be iven an opportunit3 to be heard and defend hi!self.
&
4rticle .0. of the )abor
*ode provides5
4rt. .0.. ,ermination by em"loyer. 6 4n e!plo3er !a3 ter!inate an e!plo3!ent for
an3 of the follo2in causes5
a. Serious !isconduct or 2illful disobedience b3 the e!plo3ee of the la2ful orders of his
e!plo3er or representative in connection 2ith his 2or1<
b. 9ross and habitual nelect b3 the e!plo3ee of his duties<
c. Fraud or 2illful breach b3 the e!plo3ee of the trust reposed in hi! b3 his e!plo3er or
dul3 authoriHed representative<
d. *o!!ission of a cri!e or offense b3 the e!plo3ee aainst the person of his
e!plo3er or an3 i!!ediate !e!ber of his fa!il3 or his dul3 authoriHed representative<
and
e. Other causes analoous to the foreoin.
4s borne b3 the records, petitioner>s dis!issal 2as brouht about b3 the utterances he
!ade durin an infor!al *hrist!as atherin of respondent co!pan3>s Sales and
Mar1etin Division on %& Dece!ber %''=. Petitioner 2as heard to have uttered, #Si
ADT "referrin to Apitacio D. Tiaon, 9eneral Manaer and President of respondent
co!pan3$, bullshit 3an,# #sabihin !o 1a3 ADT 3an# and #sabihin !o 1a3 ADT, bullshit
3an,# 2hile !a1in the #dirt3 finer# esture. Petitioner li1e2ise told his co+e!plo3ees
that the forthco!in national sales conference of respondent co!pan3 2ould be a #ver3
blood3 one.#
The N)R* ruled that the foreoin actuation of petitioner constituted ross !isconduct
2arrantin his dis!issal. *itin Burisprudence, the N)R* held that #in ter!inatin the
e!plo3!ent of !anaerial e!plo3ees, the e!plo3er is allo2ed a 2ider latitude of
discretion than in the case of ordinar3 ran1+and+file.#
0
Ge do not aree 2ith the findins of the N)R*.
3
Misconduct is i!proper or 2ron conduct. It is the transression of so!e established
and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of dut3, 2illful in character, and
i!plies 2ronful intent and not !ere error in Bud!ent. The !isconduct to be serious
!ust be of such ave and aravated character and not !erel3 trivial and uni!portant.
Such !isconduct, ho2ever serious, !ust, nevertheless, be in connection 2ith the
e!plo3ee>s 2or1 to constitute Bust cause for his separation.
'
In this case, the alleed !isconduct of petitioner, 2hen vie2ed in its conte?t, is not of
such serious and rave character as to 2arrant his dis!issal. First, petitioner !ade the
alleed offensive utterances and obscene esture durin an infor!al *hrist!as
atherin of respondent co!pan3>s district sales !anaers and !ar1etin staff. The
atherin 2as Bust a casual et+toether of e!plo3ees. It is to be e?pected durin this
1ind of atherins, 2ho! tonues are !ore often than not loosened b3 li7uor or other
alcoholic beveraes, that e!plo3ees freel3 e?press their rievances and ripes aainst
their e!plo3ers. A!plo3ees should be allo2ed 2ider latitude to freel3 e?press their
senti!ents durin these 1inds of occasions 2hich are be3ond the disciplinar3 authorit3
of the e!plo3er. Sinificantl3, it does not appear in the records that petitioner possessed
an3 ascendanc3 over the e!plo3ees 2ho heard his utterances as to cause
de!oraliHation in the ran1s.
Second, petitioner>s outburst 2as in reaction to the decision of the !anae!ent in the
#*ua )i!# case. 4d!ittedl3, usin the 2ords #bullshit# and #putan ina# and !a1in le2d
esture to e?press his dissatisfaction over said !anae!ent decision 2ere clearl3 in
bad taste but these acts 2ere not intended to !alin or cast aspersion on the person of
respondent co!pan3>s president and eneral !anaer.
The instant case should be distinuished fro! the previous cases 2here 2e held that
the use of insultin and offensive lanuae constituted ross !isconduct Bustif3in an
e!plo3ee>s dis!issal. In De la Cru- vs. &(.C,
%,
the dis!issed e!plo3ee shouted
#sa3an an pa1a+professional !oI# and #putan ina !o# at the co!pan3 ph3sician
2hen the latter refused to ive hi! a referral slip. In /utobus 0orkers! 1nion 2/013 vs)
&(.C,
%%
the dis!issed e!plo3ee called his supervisor #ao 1a# and taunted the latter
b3 sa3in #ba1it anon usto !o, tan ina !o.# In these cases, the dis!issed
e!plo3ees personall3 subBected their respective superiors to the foreoin verbal
abuses. The utter lac1 of respect for their superiors 2as patent. In contrast, 2hen
petitioner 2as heard to have uttered the alleed offensive 2ords aainst respondent
co!pan3>s president and eneral !anaer, the latter 2as not around.
In /sian Design and Manufacturing Cor"oration vs) De"uty Minister of (abor,
%.
the
dis!issed e!plo3ee !ade false and !alicious state!ents aainst the fore!an "his
superior$ b3 tellin his co+e!plo3ees5 #If 3ou don>t ive a oat to the fore!an 3ou 2ill be
ter!inated. If 3ou 2ant to re!ain in this co!pan3, 3ou have to ive a oat.# The
dis!issed e!plo3ee therein li1e2ise posted a notice in the co!fort roo! of the
co!pan3 pre!ises 2hich read5 #Notice to all Sander + Those 2ho 2ant to re!ain in this
co!pan3, 3ou !ust ive an3thin to 3our fore!an. Failure to do so 2ill be ter!inated 6
4lice 0,.# In .eynolds hili""ine Cor"oration vs. 4slava,
%=
the dis!issed e!plo3ee
circulated several letters to the !e!bers of the co!pan3>s board of directors callin the
e?ecutive vice+president and eneral !anaer a #bi fool,# #anti+Filipino# and accusin
hi! of #!is!anae!ent, inefficienc3, lac1 of plannin and foresiht, pett3 favoritis!,
dictatorial policies, one+!an rule, conte!ptuous attitude to labor, anti+Filipino utterances
and activities.# In this case, the records do not sho2 that petitioner !ade an3 such false
and !alicious state!ents aainst an3 of his superiors.
Third, respondent co!pan3 itself did not see! to consider the offense of petitioner
serious and rave enouh to 2arrant an i!!ediate investiation on the !atter. It !ust
be recalled that petitioner uttered the alleed offensive lanuae at an infor!al
atherin on %& Dece!ber %''=. 8e then alleedl3 !ade threatenin re!ar1s about
the forthco!in sales conference on = ;anuar3 %''/. Durin a !eetin on / ;anuar3
%''/, Mr. Titon, ;r., the president and eneral !anaer of respondent co!pan3 and
alleedl3 to 2ho! the offensive 2ords 2ere directed, !erel3 ad!onished petitioner
statin that, #2hen there is a disaree!ent, act in a professional and civiliHed !anner.#
Respondent co!pan3 allo2ed several 2ee1s to pass before it dee!ed it necessar3 to
re7uire petitioner to e?plain 2h3 no disciplinar3 action should be ta1en aainst hi! for
his behavior. This see!in lac1 of urenc3 on the part of respondent co!pan3 in ta1in
an3 disciplinar3 action aainst petitioner neates its chare that the latter>s !isbehavior
constituted serious !isconduct.
Further, respondent co!pan3>s rules and reulations
%/
provide as follo2s5
N4TFRA OF T8A OFFANSA
%. . . .
.. )oafin or loiterin, enain in fistcuffs or loud!outhed 7uarrelin or provo1in or
enain others to such behaviour, inflictin bodil3 har! to another, an3 violent act or
lanuae 2hich affects adversel3 !orals, production or the !aintenance of discipline,
indecent or i!!oral conduct durin 2or1in hours< unauthoriHed participation in
activities durin official hours 2hich are outside of reularl3 assined duties5
!alinerin< unauthoriHed absence such as underti!e< oin on sic1 leave althouh
not actuall3 sic1< fre7uentl3 receivin visitors durin official hours for personal !atter.
=. Gillful and intentional refusal 2ithout valid reason to accept 2or1 or follo2 specific
instructions< disrespect< insolence< and li1e behavior to2ards a superior authorit3 of a
hih ran1in officer of the co!pan3.
4
P A N 4 ) T I A S
First Offense5 Verbal re!inder
Second Offense5 Gritten repri!and
Third offense5 Pa3roll deduction for ti!e not 2or1ed due offenses. Revie2 2ith Dept.
8ead 2ith 2ritten follo2 up.
Fourth Offense5 .nd 2ritten repri!and 2ith 2arnin of suspension.
Fifth Offense5 Suspension and final rapi!and 2ith 2arnin of dis!issal if reoccurs.
Si?th Offense5 Dis!issal
Petitioner>s conduct on %& Dece!ber %''= !a3 be properl3 considered as fallin under
either pararaph nu!ber ., i.e), use of violent lanuae, or pararaph nu!ber =, i.e),
insolence or disrespect to2ards a superior authorit3. Cein a first offense, the
appropriate penalt3 i!posable on petitioner is onl3 a #verbal re!inder# and not
dis!issal.
Indeed, the penalt3 of dis!issal is undul3 harsh considerin that petitioner had been in
the e!plo3 of respondent co!pan3 for eleven "%%$ 3ears and it does not appear that he
had a previous deroator3 record. It is settled that not2ithstandin the e?istence of a
valid cause for dis!issal, such as breach of trust b3 an e!plo3ee, nevertheless,
dis!issal should not be i!posed, as it is too severe a penalt3 if the latter had been
e!plo3ed for a considerable lenth of ti!e in the service of his e!plo3er, and such
e!plo3!ent is untainted b3 an3 1ind of dishonest3 and irreularit3.
%(
This concern of the *ourt for the ter!ination of e!plo3!ent even on the assu!ption
that conduct far fro! e?e!plar3 2as induled in 2as !ade evident in the case of
/lmira vs) 5)6) 7oodrich hili""ines, 'nc),
%-
2here this *ourt held5
It 2ould i!pl3 at the ver3 least that 2here a penalt3 less punitive 2ould suffice,
2hatever !issteps !a3 be co!!itted b3 labor ouht not to be visited 2ith a
conse7uence so severe. It is not onl3 because of the la2>s concern for the 2or1in!an.
There is, in addition, his fa!il3 to consider. Fne!plo3!ent brins untold hardships and
sorro2s on those dependent on the 2ae+earner. The !iser3 and pain attendant on the
loss of Bobs then could be avoided if there be acceptance of the vie2 that under all
circu!stances of this case, petitioners should not be deprived of their !eans of
livelihood. Nor is this to condone 2hat had been done b3 the!. For all this 2hile, since
private respondent considered the! separated fro! the service, the3 had not been
paid. Fro! the strictl3 Buridical standpoint, it cannot be too stronl3 stressed, to follo2
Davis in his !asterl3 2or1, Discretionar3 ;ustice, that 2here a decision !a3 be !ade to
rest on infor!ed Bud!ent rather than riid rules, all the e7uities of the case !ust be
accorded their due 2eiht.
%&
9iven the environ!ental circu!stances of this case, the acts of petitioner clearl3 do not
constitute serious !isconduct as to Bustif3 his dis!issal. Neither is his dis!issal Bustified
on round of loss of confidence. 4s a round for dis!issal, the ter! #trust and
confidence# is restricted to !anaerial e!plo3ees.
%0
Ge share the vie2 of the Solicitor
9eneral that petitioner is not a !anaerial e!plo3ee. Cefore one !a3 be properl3
considered a !anaerial e!plo3ee, all the follo2in conditions !ust be !et5
"%$ Their pri!ar3 dut3 consists of the !anae!ent of the establish!ent in 2hich the3
are e!plo3ed or of a depart!ent or sub+division thereof<
".$ The3 custo!aril3 and reularl3 direct the 2or1 of t2o or !ore e!plo3ees therein<
"=$ The3 have the authorit3 to hire or fire other e!plo3ees of lo2er ran1< or their
suestions and reco!!endations as to the hirin and firin and as to the pro!otion or
an3 other chane of status of other e!plo3ees 2e iven particular 2eiht.
%'
Further, it is the nature of the e!plo3ee>s functions, and not the no!enclature or title
iven to his Bob, 2hich deter!ines 2hether he has ran1+and+file, supervisor3 or
!anaerial status.
.,
Petitioner describes his functions as District Sales Manaer as
follo2s5
The office of a District Sales Manaer>s pri!ar3 responsibilit3 is to achieve or surpass
the sales and profit tarets for each territor3 in the assined district throuh5 "a$ efficient
plannin< "b$ !anae!ent function< and "c$ auditin and control. #Manae!ent action,#
on the other hand, !eans to direct the activities of the Professional Medical
Representatives Db3E5 "%$ D!a1inE decisions that are co!patible 2ith district, national
and corporate obBectives< ".$ DdirectinE the activities of representative throuh 6 "a$
fre7uent field visits "!ust spend at least 0,J of 2or1in da3s in a 7uarter, allocatin
eiht "0$ 2or1in da3s per PMR@7uarter e?cludin travel ti!e$< "b$ 2ritten
co!!unications< "c$ sales !eetins 6 "=$ DtraininE PMRs in !edical@product
1no2lede< "/$ D!otivatinE and DdevelopinE PMRs to2ard reater productivit3< "($
DactinE as a channel bet2een field and ho!e office< "-$ D!aintaininE records as basis
for 7uic1 anal3sis of the district perfor!ance< "&$ DoverseeinE special proBects assurin
the cost benefit value of such benefit< "0$ . . . suestin to sales !anae!ent ne2
ideas, !ethods, devices to increase productivit3 of sales district or individual properties<
and DinsurinE safe custod3 and proper !aintenance of all co!pan3 properties "e)g.
co!pan3 cars, audio+visuals$.
.%
5
The above Bob description does not !ention that petitioner possesses the po2er #to la3
do2n policies nor to hire, transfer, suspend, la3 off recall, dischare, assin or discipline
e!plo3ees.# 4bsent this crucial ele!ent, petitioner cannot be considered a !anaerial
e!plo3ee despite his desination as District Sales Manaer.
9rantin arguendo that petitioner 2ere to be considered a !anaerial e!plo3ee, the
round for #loss of confidence# is still 2ithout basis. )oss of trust and confidence to be a
valid round for an e!plo3ee>s dis!issal !ust be clearl3 established.
..
4 breach is
2illful if it is done intentionall3, 1no2inl3 and purposel3, 2ithout Bustifiable e?cuse, as
distinuished fro! an act done carelessl3, thouhtlessl3, heedlessl3 or inadvertentl3. It
!ust rest on substantial rounds and not on the e!plo3er>s arbitrariness, 2hi!s,
caprices or suspicion, other2ise, the e!plo3ee 2ould re!ain at the !erc3 of the
e!plo3er.
.=
Ghen petitioner !ade the offensive utterances, it can be said that he
!erel3 acted #carelessl3, thouhtlessl3 or heedlessl3# and not #intentionall3, 1no2inl3,
purposel3, or 2ithout Bustifiable e?cuse.#
In fine, there bein no Bust cause for petitioner>s dis!issal, the sa!e is conse7uentl3
unla2ful.1*w"hi1 Petitioner is thus entitled to reinstate!ent to his position as District
Sales Manaer, unless such position no loner e?ists, in 2hich case he shall be iven a
substantiall3 e7uivalent position 2ithout loss of seniorit3 rihts. 8e is li1e2ise entitled to
the pa3!ent of his full bac12aes.
Gith respect to petitioner>s other !onetar3 clai!s, ho2ever, 2e aree 2ith the findins
of the labor arbiter that he failed to establish his entitle!ent thereto. Ge 7uote 2ith
approval the labor arbiter>s pertinent findins as follo2s5
4nent the !onetar3 clai!s of co!plainant for pa3!ent of the holida3 pa3 and the cash
e7uivalent of the rice subsid3 for the period 4pril %'', to Dece!ber %''. vis#a#vis the
docu!entar3 evidence available on records "4nne?es #8# and #I#$ this Office is inclined
to den3 said clai!s for failure of the co!plainant to substantiall3 and convincinl3 prove
the sa!e.
Ghen co!plainant 2as appointed District Sales Manaer effective 4pril %, %'',, his
salar3 2as increased b3 PASOS5 T2o Thousand Five 8undred Onl3 "P.,(,,.,,$
"4nne? #8#$ in accordance 2ith respondent>s #Salar3 4d!inistrative Polic3#.
4ain, effective ;anuar3 %, %''=, co!plainant>s salar3 2as increased b3 PASOS5 One
Thousand One 8undred Four, so !uch so that in the span of t2o ".$ 3ears,
co!plainant>s salar3 reached the a!ount of T2ent3 Thousand Five 8undred Thirt3 Si?
"P.,,(=-.,,$ Pesos 2hich lends credence to the position of the respondent SP* that
said clai!s for holida3 pa3 and rice subsid3 is alread3 interated in co!plainant>s
salar3.
./
G8ARAFORA, the instant petition is 9R4NTAD. The Decision, dated %& March %''(,
and Resolution, dated %, Ma3 %''(, of the N)R* in the consolidated cases of N)R*
N*R+,,+,%+,,-(.+'/ and N)R* N*R+,,+,.+,,00&+'/ are RAVARSAD and SAT
4SIDA. The Decision, dated .( 4uust %''/, of the labor arbiter is RAINST4TAD.
SO ORDARAD.1*w"hi1)n+t
Davide, $r), C)$), uno, ardo and 8nares#Santiago, $$), concur)
K
6