View full case

JEROME M. DAABAY v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

FACTS:

Jerome Daabay filed a complaint against Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (Coca-Cola) and three officers of the company for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, unfair labor practice, and monetary claims. Daabay was employed by Coca-Cola as Sales Logistics Checker, but his employment was terminated based on allegations made by Cesar Sorin that Daabay was involved in a conspiracy allowing the pilferage of company property. A detailed affidavit by Sorin highlighted the alleged pilferage and losses amounting to P20,860,913.00. Coca-Cola issued a Notice to Explain with Preventive Suspension to Daabay, who denied involvement in the pilferage. After a formal investigation, Coca-Cola terminated Daabay's employment due to pilferage, serious misconduct, and loss of trust and confidence. Daabay then filed a labor complaint, which was initially ruled in his favor by the labor arbiter. However, Coca-Cola appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the finding of illegal dismissal and dismissed the complaint. The NLRC also awarded retirement benefits to Daabay. Coca-Cola's partial motion for reconsideration was denied, and they subsequently appealed to the CA. The CA granted the writ of certiorari but deleted the award of retirement benefits. Daabay's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA, prompting him to file the present petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petition should include the issue of the legality of Daabay's dismissal.

  2. Whether Daabay is entitled to retirement benefits.

  3. Whether or not the award of financial assistance or separation pay is warranted in cases of valid dismissal for serious misconduct.

RULING:

  1. The petition should not include the issue of the legality of Daabay's dismissal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals was brought by Coca-Cola and was limited to the issue of whether the award of retirement benefits to Daabay was proper. The Court emphasized that a party who has not appealed from a decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he had obtained from the lower court. Daabay's plea for the modification of the NLRC's findings on the legality of his dismissal was misplaced, and the Court cannot review matters that were not raised in the appeal.

  2. Daabay is not entitled to retirement benefits. He was lawfully dismissed by Coca-Cola on the grounds of serious misconduct, breach of trust, and loss of confidence. The Court ruled that retirement benefits are not applicable to employees who were dismissed for just cause. Even if Daabay was already qualified for retirement at the time of his dismissal, his entitlement to retirement benefits is rendered nugatory because he was terminated for cause.

  3. The award of financial assistance or separation pay is not warranted in cases of valid dismissal for serious misconduct. Financial assistance or separation pay is allowed as a measure of social justice only in cases where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. It is not intended to reward the erring employee for his offense but rather to provide support in cases of valid dismissals for causes other than serious misconduct. In this case, the employee was dismissed on the grounds of serious misconduct, breach of trust, and loss of confidence, thus the award of financial assistance or separation pay based on equity was unwarranted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A party who has not appealed from a decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he had obtained from the lower court.

  • Retirement benefits are not applicable to employees who were dismissed for just cause.

  • Financial assistance or separation pay is allowed only in cases where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.

  • The purpose of financial assistance or separation pay is to provide support in cases of valid dismissals for causes other than serious misconduct and not to reward the erring employee.

  • Financial assistance or separation pay is not warranted in cases of valid dismissal for serious misconduct.