CASE DIGEST: JR HAULING SERVICES and OSCAR MAPUE vs. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, ET AL. G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020

FACTS:

JR Hauling Services engaged the services of Respondents as its drivers or helpers in transporting live chickens from broiler farms to the processing plant of its clients. 

 

JR Hauling issues receiving slips and job orders containing the number of live chickens for transport and the delivery route from the broiler farms to the processing plant wherein compliance with such job orders is ensured by authorized personnel of JR Hauling in the broiler farms.

Due to the usual death of broiler chickens during delivery, Respondents secure additional numbers of broilers as replacements for the dead broilers to ensure that the same quantity under the job orders will be delivered.

 

Respondents were paid Php 300.00 per trip, but they are required to make 2 trips per day or a total of Php 600.00 per day. However, due to the remote and distant locations of the farms, Respondents could only accomplish 1 trip per day, limiting their earning capacity to only Php 300.00 per day. 

 

On April 3, 2011, Petitioner displayed the pictures of the respondents at the gate and barred them from entering the company premises. Respondents claimed that they were then dismissed without notice and hearing or investigation.

 

Respondents then filed with the Labor Arbiter complaint for illegal dismissal.

 

Petitioner, on its defense, argued that it has valid causes in dismissing Respondent as it incurred shortages in the deliveries of the broilers and broiler crates and that upon further investigation it discovered that Respondents sell the excess broilers and crates without its knowledge and consent, thus these acts constitute serious misconduct and fraud or willful breach of trust and confidence.

ISSUE:

Whether Respondents were validly dismissed from their employment.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court has held that the Petitioner did not comply with the Procedural requirements in terminating the employment of the Respondent. 

 

The Implementing Rules in relation to Article 297 of the Labor Code provides for the following procedural requirements:

 

    a. A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.

    b. A written notice of termination was served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

 

Petitioner admitted that there are no written notices given to Respondents. Evidence also shows that it just posted pictures of the Respondents at the gate and barred their entrance to the company premises. This kind of notice is insufficient to comply with the procedural requirements of the law as the employees have not been able to explain their sides. Employees cannot be said to have been properly or validly dismissed without proper notice and hearing.

 

As for the Substantive requirements, the Supreme Court in reiterating the rule under Article 297 of the Labor Code, agreed that the Petitioner has valid causes in terminating the employment of the Respondents. 

 

The acts of Respondents in selling the excess broilers and crates and anomalous transactions constitute serious misconduct as they commit a willful transgression of some established rule of action, a forbidden act, or dereliction of duty. The acts of the Respondents were not only serious in character but are also related to the performance of their duties and show their unfitness to continue working with the Petitioner. 

 

Their act of selling broilers and crates further manifests their dishonesty which constitutes a breach of trust and confidence reposed upon them by the Petitioner. The nature of the work of the Respondents falls within those positions of trust and confidence wherein employers entrusted the handling or care and protection of its properties and assets to the employees. Petitioner entrusted with the Respondents the custody, delivery, and transportation of the broilers and crates, including the proper handling and care by the directives of the Petitioner. 

 

Hence, although there are valid causes for terminating the employment of the Respondents, Petitioner, nevertheless, did not effect a valid dismissal for non-compliance with the Procedural requirement of notice and hearing.