Scribd
Upload
132 views1 page

Sagales vs. Rustan

1. Julito Sagales was employed by Rustan's Commercial Corporation for 31 years until he was terminated in 2001 after being apprehended stealing squid worth 50 pesos. 2. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Rustan's but the NLRC reversed, finding the dismissal to be illegal as his position was not supervisory. However, the CA found his position to be supervisory. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the supervisory nature of his position but ruled that dismissal was too harsh a penalty and instead awarded separation pay and back wages in lieu of reinstatement.

Uploaded by

John Paul Santos
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
132 views1 page

Sagales vs. Rustan

1. Julito Sagales was employed by Rustan's Commercial Corporation for 31 years until he was terminated in 2001 after being apprehended stealing squid worth 50 pesos. 2. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Rustan's but the NLRC reversed, finding the dismissal to be illegal as his position was not supervisory. However, the CA found his position to be supervisory. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the supervisory nature of his position but ruled that dismissal was too harsh a penalty and instead awarded separation pay and back wages in lieu of reinstatement.

Uploaded by

John Paul Santos
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Security of Tenure

JULITO SAGALES, petitioner,


vs.
RUSTAN'S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondent.
G.R. No. 166554            
Case No. 3

The Facts
Petitioner Julito Sagales was employed by respondent Rustan's Commercial Corporation from 1970 -
2001, when he was terminated. During his dismissal he was Chief Cook at the Yum Yum Tree Coffee Shop at
Rustan's Supermarket in Ayala Avenue, Makati City.
The petitioner has numerous citations for his performance. However, he was about to go home when the security
of Rustan’s supermarket apprehended him with plastic bag of more or less one kilogram head of squid worth of
P50. The petitioner was inquest and charged of qualified theft, which was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The
legal department has given the petitioner to present himself and rebut the allegation against with the two
witnesses (guards) of Rustan. The defense of the petitioner was preventive suspension for one month. Thus
petitioner filed a complaint of illegal dismissal etc.

Labor Arbiter, favored the respondent, NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter. It held that the position of complainant
is not supervisory covered by the trust and confidence rule. The NLRC further ruled that petitioner was illegally
dismissed as respondent failed to establish a just cause for dismissal.
CA opined that the position of petitioner was supervisory in nature. The CA also held that the evidence presented
by respondent clearly established loss of trust and confidence on petitioner.

Issues:
Petitioner in his Memorandum39 imputes to the CA the following errors, to wit:
1. W/o supervisory position is covered by the trust and confidence rule
2. W/ o Trust and confidence applies against the petitioner for his dismissal.

Held:
I. The position of petitioner is supervisory in nature which is covered by the trust and confidence rule.
There is no doubt that the position of petitioner as chief cook is supervisory in nature. A chief cook directs and
participates in the preparation and serving of meals; determines timing and sequence of operations required to
meet serving times; and inspects galley and equipment for cleanliness and proper storage and preparation of
food.44 Naturally, a chief cook falls under the definition of a supervisor.

II. The employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that his participation in the misconduct
rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence.59
Infractions committed by an employee should merit only the corresponding penalty demanded by the
circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or omission imputed to the employee and
must be imposed in connection with the disciplinary authority of the employer.
Thus, in lieu of reinstatement, it is but proper to award petitioner separation pay computed at one-month salary for
every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year. In the computation of
separation pay, the period where backwages are awarded must be included.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner is granted
separation pay and backwages in lieu of reinstatement.

You might also like