Case Digest: Mapili v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines
G.R. NO. 172506: July 27, 2011
JERRY MAPILI, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, NATIVIDAD NISCE, Respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (company) is headed by President Natividad P. Nisce (Nisce). On April 7, 1993 the company hired Jerry Mapili (Mapili) as a bus conductor. While on duty on October 7, 2001, Nisce was caught by a company field inspector giving a free ride to the wife of a co-employee. Mapili was preventively suspended on October 9 and ordered to appear in an administrative investigation, where he was allowed to explain his actions. The incident was the third time Mapili had been caught extending free rides to passengers in violation of company rules. Mapili was terminated from employment on November 9.
Mapili filed a case with the NLRC alleging that the company had illegally dismissed him.
The Labor Arbiter held that Mapili had no intention to defraud the company and that his dismissal was illegal. The NLRC later reversed the ruling of the LA, and found that Mapili had been dismissed for cause as his non-issuance of a ticket to the lady passenger was deliberate and intentional. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mapili was illegally dismissed.
HELD:
LABOR LAW: just causes for dismissal
Petitioner claim of good faith is belied by his testimony to the effect that he extended a free ride out of gratitude to the wife of a co-employee who assisted him in his financial troubles. Mapili was aware that the infraction he committed constituted a grave offense but he still persisted in committing the same out of gratitude to the passenger. e chose to violate company rules for his benefit without regard to his responsibilities to the company. lso, if not for the inspector who discovered the incident, the company would have been defrauded by the amount of fare. p>
Further, as etitioner mployment ecord hows, his s ot he first ime that petitioner refused to collect fares from passengers. Although petitioner already suffered the corresponding penalties for his past misconduct, those infractions are still relevant and may be considered in assessing his liability for his present infraction.
In Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company, the Court held that a"series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct" sufficient to justify dismissal.
Petition is DENIED. The ruling of the CA that Mapili was illegally dismissed is affirmed.
JERRY MAPILI, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, NATIVIDAD NISCE, Respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (company) is headed by President Natividad P. Nisce (Nisce). On April 7, 1993 the company hired Jerry Mapili (Mapili) as a bus conductor. While on duty on October 7, 2001, Nisce was caught by a company field inspector giving a free ride to the wife of a co-employee. Mapili was preventively suspended on October 9 and ordered to appear in an administrative investigation, where he was allowed to explain his actions. The incident was the third time Mapili had been caught extending free rides to passengers in violation of company rules. Mapili was terminated from employment on November 9.
Mapili filed a case with the NLRC alleging that the company had illegally dismissed him.
The Labor Arbiter held that Mapili had no intention to defraud the company and that his dismissal was illegal. The NLRC later reversed the ruling of the LA, and found that Mapili had been dismissed for cause as his non-issuance of a ticket to the lady passenger was deliberate and intentional. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mapili was illegally dismissed.
HELD:
LABOR LAW: just causes for dismissal
Petitioner claim of good faith is belied by his testimony to the effect that he extended a free ride out of gratitude to the wife of a co-employee who assisted him in his financial troubles. Mapili was aware that the infraction he committed constituted a grave offense but he still persisted in committing the same out of gratitude to the passenger. e chose to violate company rules for his benefit without regard to his responsibilities to the company. lso, if not for the inspector who discovered the incident, the company would have been defrauded by the amount of fare. p>
Further, as etitioner mployment ecord hows, his s ot he first ime that petitioner refused to collect fares from passengers. Although petitioner already suffered the corresponding penalties for his past misconduct, those infractions are still relevant and may be considered in assessing his liability for his present infraction.
In Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company, the Court held that a"series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct" sufficient to justify dismissal.
Petition is DENIED. The ruling of the CA that Mapili was illegally dismissed is affirmed.
