| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
670 Phil. 252
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 172506, July 27, 2011 ]
JERRY MAPILI, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC./NATIVIDAD NISCE, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
An employee's propensity to commit repetitious infractions evinces wrongful intent, making him undeserving of the compassion accorded by law to labor.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] assails the Decision [2] dated January 16, 2006 and Resolution [3] dated April 6, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89733, which affirmed the Decision [4] dated November 25, 2004 and Resolution [5] dated February 28, 2005 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) finding petitioner Jerry Mapili (petitioner) to have been dismissed for cause.
Factual Antecedents
Respondent Natividad P. Nisce (Nisce) is the President of respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI), an entity engaged in the transportation business. On April 7, 1993, PRBLI hired petitioner as bus conductor with a salary of P510.00 per trip. On October 7, 2001, while on duty en route from Manila to Alaminos, Pangasinan, petitioner was caught by PRBLI's field inspector extending a free ride to a lady passenger who boarded at Barangay Magtaking, Labrador, Pangasinan. Upon order of the field inspector, the lady passenger, who happened to be the wife of Julio Ricardo, petitioner's co-employee and one of PRBLI's drivers, was immediately issued a passenger ticket for which she paid P50.00. [6]
On October 9, 2001, petitioner was preventively suspended and was directed to appear in an administrative investigation. [7] Thereafter, a formal hearing was conducted during which petitioner was given an opportunity to present and explain his side. Consequently, through a memorandum [8] dated November 9, 2001, petitioner was terminated from employment for committing a serious irregularity by extending a free ride to a passenger in violation of company rules. Notably, that was already the third time that petitioner committed said violation.
On February 19, 2002, petitioner filed with the NLRC a Complaint [9] for illegal dismissal against PRBLI, Nisce, and Ricardo Paras (Paras), PRBLI's General Manager.
Parties' Respective Arguments
Petitioner alleged that his employment was terminated without cause and due process. He argued that the infraction was only trivial. It was done without malice and resulted from his honest belief that immediate family members of PRBLI's employees are entitled to free ride. He argued that his two previous violations of the same company regulation cannot be considered in the imposition of the penalty of dismissal since those previous infractions were not too serious. The first involved a police officer supposedly on official duty who refused to pay for a passenger ticket, while the second involved a former employee of PRBLI who misrepresented himself to be a current employee by virtue of a company ID duly presented. Moreover, he has already been penalized for these previous violations and to consider them anew would be tantamount to penalizing him twice for the same offense. Under these circumstances and considering further his length of service, petitioner advanced that his violations are not sufficient to merit the penalty of dismissal. Petitioner thus prayed that his dismissal be declared illegal and that he be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, 13th month pay, damages, attorney's fees and refund of cash bond in the amount of P5,000.00.
Respondents argued that petitioner's admissions during the investigation that he indeed offered a free ride out of gratitude to the wife of his co-employee and that it was his third offense, justified his termination considering that his position is imbued with trust and confidence. They claimed that petitioner's failure to collect fares from the riding public, coupled with his past record of serious offenses ranging from non-issuance, improper passenger tickets to collecting fares without issuing tickets, and allowing passengers to board without fare coupons, for which different penalties have been imposed against him, are grounds for valid dismissal. Respondents also argued that due process was observed when petitioner was accorded a chance to defend himself in an investigation conducted for that purpose. Respondents further disclaimed bad faith, malice, and liability to petitioner's money claims.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
In a Decision [10] dated July 2, 2003, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioner had no intention to defraud the company by his failure to issue a ticket to the wife of a co-employee as the same was done out of gratitude and under the wrong impression that she is entitled to such privilege. Besides, the amount of the fare was subsequently collected from and paid by the passenger. The Labor Arbiter opined that petitioner's actuations merited a less punitive penalty such as suspension of 30 days which he already served during his preventive suspension. The Labor Arbiter also found that petitioner was not denied due process since he was given the opportunity to present his side. As regards Nisce and Paras, the Labor Arbiter held that they cannot be held personally liable for lack of bad faith on their part. The dispositive portion of said Decision reads:
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
The NLRC, in a Decision [12] dated November 25, 2004 set aside the findings of the Labor Arbiter upon appeal by respondents. It found that the non-issuance of a ticket to the lady passenger and failure to collect money due to the company was a deliberate and intentional act of petitioner which prejudiced the company's interests. In ruling that petitioner's dismissal was for just cause, the NLRC opined that petitioner's past record of committing several acts of misconduct and his propensity to commit similar infractions do not merit the compassion of law. Thus, the NLRC disposed of the case as follows:
Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration [14] which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution [15] dated February 28, 2005.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari. [16] The CA, in its Decision [17] dated January 16, 2006, however, found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that petitioner was validly dismissed. The CA agreed that petitioner has a history of committing violations of company rules, the last one being a repeat violation against extending free rides to passengers. This infraction is considered as a grave offense and serious misconduct which merits the penalty of dismissal. The CA also agreed that there was intent to cheat the company of its funds.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [18] was likewise denied in the CA Resolution [19] dated April 6, 2006.
Hence, the instant petition.
Issues
Petitioner raised the following grounds:
Petitioner asserts that the penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the infraction he committed because his act of extending a free ride was not deliberate but was done on a wrong assumption that immediate family members of company employees are entitled to free rides. He insists that his past infractions, unsupported by proof, and his previous two offenses of not issuing fare tickets to a police officer and former company employee cannot be used as bases for his termination considering that his actuations for the latter offenses were justified under the circumstances and that he was already penalized for all these past violations. It is petitioner's view that his infraction merits only a 30-day suspension, as imposed by the Labor Arbiter.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
Petitioner's violation of company
rules was intentional, willful, serious
and a just cause for dismissal.
Petitioner assails the CA's finding that petitioner's non-issuance of a passenger ticket to the lady passenger is a grave offense, that it was committed with deliberate intent and a repeat violation of a company rule which merits dismissal. Petitioner insists that his infraction was merely trivial because he was under the impression that immediate family members of employees are entitled to free ride. Petitioner cites Section 13, Article VIII [21] of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which provides:
Petitioner insists that his act of extending a free ride is in accordance with the aforequoted provision and the fact that he may have overlooked the requirement of passes with respect to immediate family members is not so serious as to characterize the offense he committed to have been performed with malicious intent.
We are not persuaded.
The above provision is clear and unequivocal that free rides are available only to employees of PRBLI. The benefit is not automatically extended to members of the employee's immediate family as passes must first be requested for them. Petitioner should be conversant of this provision considering his previous infractions of this same provision for which he was duly penalized. Besides, petitioner's claim of good faith is belied by his testimony to the effect that he extended a free ride out of gratitude to the wife of a co-employee who assisted him in his financial troubles. During the administrative investigation conducted on October 15, 2001, petitioner narrated thus:
Based on this testimony, it is quite apparent that petitioner was aware that the infraction he committed constituted a grave offense but he still persisted in committing the same out of gratitude to the passenger. Hence, as correctly found by the CA, there was deliberate intent on the part of the petitioner to commit the violation in order to repay a personal debt at the expense of the company. Petitioner chose to violate company rules for his benefit without regard to his responsibilities to the company. Also, if not for the inspector who discovered the incident, the company would have been defrauded by the amount of fare.
It bears stressing that petitioner has been in the employ of PRBLI for more
than eight years already and is a member of the company's labor union. As such, he ought to know the specific company rules pertaining to his line of work as a bus conductor. For that matter, his length of service has even aggravated the resulting consequences of his transgressions. In addition, on April 8, 1994 and May 3, 1995, he committed similar infractions of extending free ride to a police officer and a former employee, respectively. These had been brought to the attention of the petitioner and for which the penalties of relief from duty and suspension were meted out upon him. [23] Hence, he ought to have known better than to repeat the same violation as he is presumed to be thoroughly acquainted with the prohibitions and restrictions against extending free rides. We also cannot agree with petitioner's contention that his infraction was trivial. As a bus conductor whose duties primarily include the collection of transportation fares, which is the lifeblood of the PRBLI, petitioner should have exercised the required diligence in the performance thereof and his habitual failure to exercise the same cannot be taken for granted. As correctly observed by the CA, petitioner's position is imbued with trust and confidence because it involves handling of money and failure to collect the proper fare from the riding public constitutes a grave offense which justifies his dismissal. Moreover, petitioner's "series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct." [24]
Petitioner's record of offenses of the
same nature as his present infraction justifies
his dismissal.
Petitioner's past infractions can be gleaned from his employment record of offenses which was presented by the respondents. This piece of evidence was not disputed by petitioner. Hence, petitioner cannot claim that the finding of his past company infractions was based merely on allegations.
As petitioner's employment record shows, this is not the first time that
petitioner refused to collect fares from passengers. In fact, this is already the third instance that he failed to collect fares from the riding public. Although petitioner already suffered the corresponding penalties for his past misconduct, those infractions are still relevant and may be considered in assessing his liability for his present infraction. [25] We thus held in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission [26]that:
As suspension may not anymore suffice as penalty for the violation done as shown by petitioner's disregard of previous warnings and propensity to commit the same infraction over the years of his employment, and to deter other employees who may be wont to violate the same company policy, petitioner's termination from employment is only proper.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 16, 2006 and Resolution dated April 6, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89733 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-26.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 120-124; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
[3] Id. at 135.
[4] Id. at 77-83; penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and concurred in by Commissioners Victoriano R. Calaycay and Angelita A. Gacutan.
[5] Id. at 86-87.
[6] Id. at 99.
[7] Id. at 23.
[8] Id. at 24.
[9] Id. at 15.
[10] Id. at 39-45.
[11] Id. at 43-44.
[12] Id. at 77-83.
[13] Id. at 82.
[14] Id. at 84-85.
[15] Id. at 86-87.
[16] Id. at 2-14.
[17] Id. at 120-124.
[18] Id. at 125-133.
[19] Id. at 135.
[20] Rollo, pp. 15-16.
[21] Id. at 137.
[22] CA rollo p. 100.
[23] See petitioner's record of past violations and minutes of October 15, 2001 investigation, id. at 98 and 100, respectively.
[24] Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 171023, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 511, 518.
[25] Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 344 Phil. 522, 531 (1997).
[26] Id. at 530-531.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] assails the Decision [2] dated January 16, 2006 and Resolution [3] dated April 6, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89733, which affirmed the Decision [4] dated November 25, 2004 and Resolution [5] dated February 28, 2005 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) finding petitioner Jerry Mapili (petitioner) to have been dismissed for cause.
Factual Antecedents
Respondent Natividad P. Nisce (Nisce) is the President of respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI), an entity engaged in the transportation business. On April 7, 1993, PRBLI hired petitioner as bus conductor with a salary of P510.00 per trip. On October 7, 2001, while on duty en route from Manila to Alaminos, Pangasinan, petitioner was caught by PRBLI's field inspector extending a free ride to a lady passenger who boarded at Barangay Magtaking, Labrador, Pangasinan. Upon order of the field inspector, the lady passenger, who happened to be the wife of Julio Ricardo, petitioner's co-employee and one of PRBLI's drivers, was immediately issued a passenger ticket for which she paid P50.00. [6]
On October 9, 2001, petitioner was preventively suspended and was directed to appear in an administrative investigation. [7] Thereafter, a formal hearing was conducted during which petitioner was given an opportunity to present and explain his side. Consequently, through a memorandum [8] dated November 9, 2001, petitioner was terminated from employment for committing a serious irregularity by extending a free ride to a passenger in violation of company rules. Notably, that was already the third time that petitioner committed said violation.
On February 19, 2002, petitioner filed with the NLRC a Complaint [9] for illegal dismissal against PRBLI, Nisce, and Ricardo Paras (Paras), PRBLI's General Manager.
Parties' Respective Arguments
Petitioner alleged that his employment was terminated without cause and due process. He argued that the infraction was only trivial. It was done without malice and resulted from his honest belief that immediate family members of PRBLI's employees are entitled to free ride. He argued that his two previous violations of the same company regulation cannot be considered in the imposition of the penalty of dismissal since those previous infractions were not too serious. The first involved a police officer supposedly on official duty who refused to pay for a passenger ticket, while the second involved a former employee of PRBLI who misrepresented himself to be a current employee by virtue of a company ID duly presented. Moreover, he has already been penalized for these previous violations and to consider them anew would be tantamount to penalizing him twice for the same offense. Under these circumstances and considering further his length of service, petitioner advanced that his violations are not sufficient to merit the penalty of dismissal. Petitioner thus prayed that his dismissal be declared illegal and that he be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, 13th month pay, damages, attorney's fees and refund of cash bond in the amount of P5,000.00.
Respondents argued that petitioner's admissions during the investigation that he indeed offered a free ride out of gratitude to the wife of his co-employee and that it was his third offense, justified his termination considering that his position is imbued with trust and confidence. They claimed that petitioner's failure to collect fares from the riding public, coupled with his past record of serious offenses ranging from non-issuance, improper passenger tickets to collecting fares without issuing tickets, and allowing passengers to board without fare coupons, for which different penalties have been imposed against him, are grounds for valid dismissal. Respondents also argued that due process was observed when petitioner was accorded a chance to defend himself in an investigation conducted for that purpose. Respondents further disclaimed bad faith, malice, and liability to petitioner's money claims.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
In a Decision [10] dated July 2, 2003, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioner had no intention to defraud the company by his failure to issue a ticket to the wife of a co-employee as the same was done out of gratitude and under the wrong impression that she is entitled to such privilege. Besides, the amount of the fare was subsequently collected from and paid by the passenger. The Labor Arbiter opined that petitioner's actuations merited a less punitive penalty such as suspension of 30 days which he already served during his preventive suspension. The Labor Arbiter also found that petitioner was not denied due process since he was given the opportunity to present his side. As regards Nisce and Paras, the Labor Arbiter held that they cannot be held personally liable for lack of bad faith on their part. The dispositive portion of said Decision reads:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant Jerry B. Mapili to have been illegally dismissed from employment. Respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position or to a similar one without loss of seniority rights and pay him the following:a.) Backwages amounting to Php271,320.00;
b.) 13th month pay of Php24,650.00;
c.) Php5,000.00 as refund of bond.
All in the total amount of Php300,970.00.
A detailed computation is attached as Annex `A'.
SO ORDERED. [11]
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
The NLRC, in a Decision [12] dated November 25, 2004 set aside the findings of the Labor Arbiter upon appeal by respondents. It found that the non-issuance of a ticket to the lady passenger and failure to collect money due to the company was a deliberate and intentional act of petitioner which prejudiced the company's interests. In ruling that petitioner's dismissal was for just cause, the NLRC opined that petitioner's past record of committing several acts of misconduct and his propensity to commit similar infractions do not merit the compassion of law. Thus, the NLRC disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is hereby, REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another entered in its stead, DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit.
Respondents are, however, ordered to refund complainant's cash bond in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), and his proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2001 in the amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY Pesos (P11,390.00), or a total amount of SIXTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY Pesos (P16,390.00).
SO ORDERED. [13]
Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration [14] which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution [15] dated February 28, 2005.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari. [16] The CA, in its Decision [17] dated January 16, 2006, however, found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that petitioner was validly dismissed. The CA agreed that petitioner has a history of committing violations of company rules, the last one being a repeat violation against extending free rides to passengers. This infraction is considered as a grave offense and serious misconduct which merits the penalty of dismissal. The CA also agreed that there was intent to cheat the company of its funds.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [18] was likewise denied in the CA Resolution [19] dated April 6, 2006.
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner raised the following grounds:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN NOT HOLDING THAT DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT IS NOT [A COMMENSURATE] PENALTY [FOR] THE INFRACTION COMMITTED AS A MERE ERROR IN JUDGMENT, SUCH AS PETITIONER'S ACT OF EXTENDING A FREE BUS RIDE TO THE CO-EMPLOYEE BUS DRIVER'S WIFE ON THE HONEST BELIEF THAT AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER OF AN EMPLOYEE IN THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO A FREE RIDE;II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN EQUATING AS PROOF RESPONDENTS' MERE ALLEGATIONS OF VARIOUS PAST INFRACTIONS AGAINST YOUR PETITIONER; andIII.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PAST TWO SIMILAR INFRACTIONS [FOR] WHICH AN EMPLOYEE HAS ALREADY SUFFERED THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY OF WARNING AND SUSPENSION, CANNOT BE USED AS X X X JUSTIFICATION[S] FOR THE EMPLOYEE'S DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. [20]
Petitioner asserts that the penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the infraction he committed because his act of extending a free ride was not deliberate but was done on a wrong assumption that immediate family members of company employees are entitled to free rides. He insists that his past infractions, unsupported by proof, and his previous two offenses of not issuing fare tickets to a police officer and former company employee cannot be used as bases for his termination considering that his actuations for the latter offenses were justified under the circumstances and that he was already penalized for all these past violations. It is petitioner's view that his infraction merits only a 30-day suspension, as imposed by the Labor Arbiter.
We deny the petition.
Petitioner's violation of company
rules was intentional, willful, serious
and a just cause for dismissal.
Petitioner assails the CA's finding that petitioner's non-issuance of a passenger ticket to the lady passenger is a grave offense, that it was committed with deliberate intent and a repeat violation of a company rule which merits dismissal. Petitioner insists that his infraction was merely trivial because he was under the impression that immediate family members of employees are entitled to free ride. Petitioner cites Section 13, Article VIII [21] of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which provides:
Section 13. Free Ride and Passes - All employees covered by this Agreement shall be provided a free ride in all units of Philippine Rabbit Bus Line, Inc. as presently practiced. However, members of his/her immediate family shall be given passes upon request to the COMPANY.
Petitioner insists that his act of extending a free ride is in accordance with the aforequoted provision and the fact that he may have overlooked the requirement of passes with respect to immediate family members is not so serious as to characterize the offense he committed to have been performed with malicious intent.
We are not persuaded.
The above provision is clear and unequivocal that free rides are available only to employees of PRBLI. The benefit is not automatically extended to members of the employee's immediate family as passes must first be requested for them. Petitioner should be conversant of this provision considering his previous infractions of this same provision for which he was duly penalized. Besides, petitioner's claim of good faith is belied by his testimony to the effect that he extended a free ride out of gratitude to the wife of a co-employee who assisted him in his financial troubles. During the administrative investigation conducted on October 15, 2001, petitioner narrated thus:
Q-9 Why on October 07 you [gave] a free ride to the wife of Driver Ricardo?
A-9 I did this because I want to pay my gratitude to her, sir.
Q-10 What are your gratitude/s to the woman?
A-10 Many times she [helped] me in my problem especially in financial, sir.
Q-11 Why [do] you need to pay your gratitude [at] the expense of the company?
A-11 For what I have done compel [sic] myself to do. Napasubo lang po ako. I admit this is a grave offense against the company. Whatever suspension that you may impose to [sic] me I am ready to accept, sir. [22]
Based on this testimony, it is quite apparent that petitioner was aware that the infraction he committed constituted a grave offense but he still persisted in committing the same out of gratitude to the passenger. Hence, as correctly found by the CA, there was deliberate intent on the part of the petitioner to commit the violation in order to repay a personal debt at the expense of the company. Petitioner chose to violate company rules for his benefit without regard to his responsibilities to the company. Also, if not for the inspector who discovered the incident, the company would have been defrauded by the amount of fare.
It bears stressing that petitioner has been in the employ of PRBLI for more
than eight years already and is a member of the company's labor union. As such, he ought to know the specific company rules pertaining to his line of work as a bus conductor. For that matter, his length of service has even aggravated the resulting consequences of his transgressions. In addition, on April 8, 1994 and May 3, 1995, he committed similar infractions of extending free ride to a police officer and a former employee, respectively. These had been brought to the attention of the petitioner and for which the penalties of relief from duty and suspension were meted out upon him. [23] Hence, he ought to have known better than to repeat the same violation as he is presumed to be thoroughly acquainted with the prohibitions and restrictions against extending free rides. We also cannot agree with petitioner's contention that his infraction was trivial. As a bus conductor whose duties primarily include the collection of transportation fares, which is the lifeblood of the PRBLI, petitioner should have exercised the required diligence in the performance thereof and his habitual failure to exercise the same cannot be taken for granted. As correctly observed by the CA, petitioner's position is imbued with trust and confidence because it involves handling of money and failure to collect the proper fare from the riding public constitutes a grave offense which justifies his dismissal. Moreover, petitioner's "series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct." [24]
Petitioner's record of offenses of the
same nature as his present infraction justifies
his dismissal.
Petitioner's past infractions can be gleaned from his employment record of offenses which was presented by the respondents. This piece of evidence was not disputed by petitioner. Hence, petitioner cannot claim that the finding of his past company infractions was based merely on allegations.
As petitioner's employment record shows, this is not the first time that
petitioner refused to collect fares from passengers. In fact, this is already the third instance that he failed to collect fares from the riding public. Although petitioner already suffered the corresponding penalties for his past misconduct, those infractions are still relevant and may be considered in assessing his liability for his present infraction. [25] We thus held in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission [26]that:
Nor can it be plausibly argued that because the offenses were already given the appropriate sanctions, they cannot be taken against him. They are relevant in assessing private respondent's liability for the present violation for the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty. To sustain private respondent's argument that the past violation should not be considered is to disregard the warnings previously issued to him.
As suspension may not anymore suffice as penalty for the violation done as shown by petitioner's disregard of previous warnings and propensity to commit the same infraction over the years of his employment, and to deter other employees who may be wont to violate the same company policy, petitioner's termination from employment is only proper.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 16, 2006 and Resolution dated April 6, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89733 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-26.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 120-124; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
[3] Id. at 135.
[4] Id. at 77-83; penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and concurred in by Commissioners Victoriano R. Calaycay and Angelita A. Gacutan.
[5] Id. at 86-87.
[6] Id. at 99.
[7] Id. at 23.
[8] Id. at 24.
[9] Id. at 15.
[10] Id. at 39-45.
[11] Id. at 43-44.
[12] Id. at 77-83.
[13] Id. at 82.
[14] Id. at 84-85.
[15] Id. at 86-87.
[16] Id. at 2-14.
[17] Id. at 120-124.
[18] Id. at 125-133.
[19] Id. at 135.
[20] Rollo, pp. 15-16.
[21] Id. at 137.
[22] CA rollo p. 100.
[23] See petitioner's record of past violations and minutes of October 15, 2001 investigation, id. at 98 and 100, respectively.
[24] Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 171023, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 511, 518.
[25] Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 344 Phil. 522, 531 (1997).
[26] Id. at 530-531.