ALBERTO J. RAZA vs. DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS., INC.

and MAMORU ONO

[ G.R. No. 188464. July 29, 2015. ]
FACTS:
Raza was hired as driver of Daikoku Electronics and was eventually assign to its President,
Mamoru Ono.
After dropping off Ono at his residence one evening, Raza brought the company vehicle home and
parked it there instead of the assigned slot in Onos condo building. When confronted the following
morning, Raza lied that the car was parked in the building but in the wrong slot. He was served with a
notice of violation three days thereafter. In his written answer he admitted bringing home the car and
lying about it. He apologized but also indicated that he was told by Ono that he could use the car if he
needed to.
At the Investigation Committee hearing, he admitted the same but reiterated that there were
previous occasions that Ono authorized him to bring the car home. The committee then recommended his
suspension for 12 days without pay but the General Affairs Manager Gaytano sent him a termination
letter instead for dishonesty. The respondents explained the harsher punishment because Ono denied
permitting Raza to such use and presented a report from the condo building security office that Raza
did not park the company car at the building thirty one times, all unauthorized.
Thus, Raza filed his Complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for damages and attorney's fees.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner Raza's numerous acts of taking the company car home overnight and lying
about one of the incidents to the company president legally deserve the supreme penalty of dismissal
from the company.
RULING:
YES. Raza's acts amounted to serious misconduct which falls under the valid grounds for
termination of the services of an employee as provided for in the Labor Code, specifically Article 282 (a)
thereof, to wit:
ART. 282.
Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of
the following causes:
(a)
Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work; . . . .
Misconduct is improper or wrongful conduct. It is the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful
intent and not mere error of judgment. For misconduct to justify dismissal under the law, (a) it must be
serious, (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the
employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
In the case at bar, Raza was terminated not for the singular act of taking home the company car
but that the incident was preceded by 31 other instances of unauthorized use of the car. By taking the
vehicle out and driving it to his home, the driver exposes such company property to the risk of damage
or loss due to collisions, theft or even untoward incidents such as a fire or civil disturbance. There is
also a risk of company liability to third persons arising from such use. In addition, such use is not free of
costs, since the extra journey entails fuel use, wear and tear, and other allied expenses. The infractions
of Raza were numerous enough that they already amount to an unlawful taking of company resources and
that they may be subsumed under the charge of serious misconduct leveled against him.