RICHARD N. RIVERA v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC.

FACTS:
Rivera was employed by respondent Genesis Transport Service, Inc. (Genesis) beginning June 2002 as a bus
conductor, assigned to the Cubao-Baler, Aurora route. As part of the requisites for his employment, he was required
to post a cash bond of P6,000.00. Respondent Riza A. Moises is Genesis' President and General Manager.

In his Position Paper before the Labor Arbiter, Rivera acknowledged that he was dismissed by Genesis on account of
a discrepancy in theamount he declared on bus ticket receipts. He alleged that he received a Memorandum 8
giving him twenty-four (24) hours to explain whyhe should not be sanctioned for reporting and remitting the
amount of P198.00 instead of the admittedly correct amount of P394.00 worthof bus ticket receipts. He responded
that it was an honest mistake, which he was unable to correct "because the bus encountered mechanical
problems.The discrepancy between the reported and remitted amount as against the correct amount was detailed in
the "Irregularity Report" prepared by Genesis' Inspector, Arnel Villaseran (Villaseran).

According to Villaseran he conducted a "man to man" inspection on the ticketsheld by the passengers on board. In
the course of his inspection, he noticed that Ticket No. 723374 VA had a written corrected amount ofP394.00.
However, the amount marked by perforations made on the ticket, which was the amount originally indicated by the
bus conductor,was only P198.00. Upon inquiring with the passenger holding the ticket, Villaseran found out that the
passenger paid P500.00 to Rivera,who gave her change in the amount of P106.00.

Subsequently, Villaseran conducted verification works with the Ticket Section of Genesis'Cubao Main Office. Per his
inquiries, the duplicate ticket surrendered by Rivera to Genesis indicated only the unconnected amount ofP198.00.
It was also found that Rivera remitted only P198.00.
12
On July 20, 2010, Genesis served on Rivera a written notice informing him that a hearing of his case was set on
July 23, 2010. Despite hisexplanations, Rivera's services were terminated through a written notice dated July 30,
2010. Contending that this termination wasarbitrary and not based on just causes for terminating employment, he
filed the Complaint

for illegal dismissal, which is subject of thisPetition.For their defense, Genesis and Riza A. Moises claimed that
Rivera's misdeclaration of the amount in the bus ticket receipts and failure toremit the correct amount clearly
violated Genesis' policies and amounted to serious misconduct, fraud, and willful breach of trust; thereby justifying
his dismissal.

Labor Arbiter
Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip gave credence to respondents' appreciation of the gravity of Rivera's acts of
misdeclaring the amountof bus ticket receipts and failing to remit the correct amount. Thus, he dismissed Rivera's
Complaint.
NLRC
National Labor Relations Commission Second Division affirmed the Decision of Labor Arbiter Demaisip and denied
Rivera's Motion forReconsideration. Thereafter, Rivera filed a Rule 65 Petition before the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals sustained the rulings of Labor Arbiter Demaisip and the National Labor Relations
Commission and denied Rivera'sMotion for Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition was filed.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner Richard N. Rivera's employment was terminated for just cause by respondent Genesis
Transport, Inc.
HELD:
Misconduct and breach of trust are just causes for terminating employment only when attended by such gravity as
would leave theemployer no other viable recourse but to cut off an employee's livelihood. The Labor Code recognizes
serious misconduct, willful breach oftrust or loss of confidence, and other analogous causes as just causes for
termination of employment:

Article 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following just
causes:(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or represe
ntative in connectionwith his work;
REYNALDO HAYAN MOYA, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST SOLID RUBBER INDUSTRIES, INC.,
RESPONDENT.

On 25 January 2005, Moya filed before the NLRC-National Capital Region a complaint for illegal dismissal against
First Solid Rubber Industries, Inc. (First Solid) and its President Edward Lee Sumulong. In his complaint-
affidavit,4Moya alleged that:

1. Sometime in May 1993, he was hired by the company First Solid, a business engaged in manufacturing of
tires and rubbers, as a machine operator;

2. Through years of dedication to his job, he was promoted as head of the Tire Curing Department of the
company;
 3. On October 15, 2004, he reported an incident about an under curing of tires within his department which
led to the damage of five tires;

4. The company conducted an investigation of the incident and he was later required to explain;

5. In his explanation, he stated that the damage was caused by machine failure and the incident was
without any fault of the operator;

6. Despite his explanation of what transpired, he was terminated by the company through a letter dated
November 9, 2004.

From the foregoing, he prayed that payment of backwages, separation pay, moral damages and exemplary damages
be adjudged in his favor due to the illegal dismissal he suffered from the company.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner employee is entitled to separation pay based on his length of service.

Ruling: Petitioner is not entitled to separation pay. Payment of separation pay cannot be justified by his length of
service.

It must be stressed that Moya was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee. He was holding a supervisory rank being
an Officer-in-Charge of the Tire Curing Department. The position, naturally one of trust, required of him abiding
honesty as compared to ordinary rank-and-file employees. When he made a false report attributing the damage of
five tires to machine failure, he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him by the company.

Moya’s dismissal is based on one of the grounds under Art. 282 of the Labor Code which is willful breach by the
employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer. Also, he is outside the protective mantle of the principle of
social justice as his act of concealing the truth from the company is clear disloyalty to the company which has long
employed him.1âwphi1

PAL vs NLRC 1998

Facts:
Private respondents (Ferdinand Pineda and Godofredo Cabling) are flight stewards of thepetitioner. Both were
dismissed from the service for their alleged involvement in the April 3, 1993currency smuggling in Hong Kong. One
person in the name of Joseph Abaca was intercepted at theairport carrying a bag containing 2.5 million pesos who
allegedly found said plastic bag at the Skybedsection of arrival flight PR300/03 where private respondents served as
flight attendants. After having
been implicated by Abaca in the incident before the respondent’s disciplinary board, it is was Abaca
himself who gave exculpating statements to the same board and declared that the private respondentswere not the
owners
of the said currencies. that just as petitioners ‘thought that they were already fullycleared of the charges, as they no
longer received any summons/notices on the intended ‘additionalhearings’ mandated by the Disciplinary Board,’ that
they were already
fully cleared of the charges, as they
no longer received any summons/notices on the intended ‘additional hearings’ mandated by theDisciplinary Board,’
they were surprised to find out that they were terminated by PAL.
Aggrieved by said dismissal, private respondents filed with the NLRC a petition for injunctionpraying that:"I. Upon
filing of this Petition, a temporary restraining order be issued, prohibiting respondents (petitionerherein) from
effecting or enforcing the Decision dated Feb. 22, 1995, or to reinstate petitionerstemporarily while a hearing on
the propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is beingundertaken;"II. After hearing, a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction be issued ordering respondent to reinstatepetitioners to their former positions
pending the hearing of this case, or, prohibiting respondent fromenforcing its Decision dated February 22,1995 while
this case is pending adjudication;"III. After hearing, that the writ of preliminary injunction as to the reliefs sought
for be made permanent,that petitioners be awarded full backwages, moral damages of PHP 500,000.00 each and
exemplary
damages of PHP 500,000.00 each, attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of whatever amount is
awarded, and the costs of suit."The NLRC issued the writ of injunction. PAL moved for reconsideration on the
ground that has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction or restraining order since this may be issued only under
Article 218 ofthe Labor Code if the case involves or arises from labor disputes and thereby divesting the labor
arbiter ofits original and exclusive jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases .

Issue:
W/N the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion on issuing the writ of injunction

Held:
Yes.In labor cases, Article 218 of the Labor Code empowers the NLRC- "(e) To enjoin or restrain anyactual or
threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of