SOCO vs MERCANTILE CORP.

OF DAVAO (1987)
FACTS:
Respondent Mercantile Corp is engaged in thesale and distribution of Ice Cream in
Davao.Petitioner, who was employed as driver of respondents delivery van, was the
PresidentMERCO Employees Labor Union, an affiliate of theFederation of Free
Workers (FFW).
An investigation was conducted due to reportsthat Soco was carrying on his union
activitiesduring working hours. It appears that on January1979, Soco was ordered to
deliver ice cream atImperial Hotel and Your Goody Mart, but hedeviated from his
usual route and went to his co-employee, who was then off duty. The
personnelofficer advised Soco to report to his office toexplain his unauthorized
deviation but Soco did notcomply. MERCO wrote to FFW asking for agrievance
conference but Soco refused to attend inhis belief that such in unnecessary. Hence,
MERCOsuspended Soco for 5 days for violation of Company Rule No. 19(a).
On February 13, 1979, Soco, after makingdeliveries of ice cream, went to the Office
of theSPFL Union. The Manager of MERCO saw thecompany vehicle parked along the
street. He calledtwo of his co-employees and took out the rotor of the van. When
Soco came out of the building, hewas unable to start the engine and called
forcompany assistance. Again, he was advised toreport to the office to explain but
refused to do so.He also refused to attend in the grievanceconference.
Soco filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practiceagainst MERCO alleging that the 5
days suspensionimposed on him was on account of his unionactivities. On the other
hand, MERCO filed an application for clearance to terminate the servicesof Soco.
These 2 cases were consolidated andtried jointly as agreed by the contending
parties
The Regional Director granted MERCOsapplication to terminate employment of
petitionerand dismissed the Socos complaint for unfair laborpractice
On appeal, the Deputy Minister of Laboraffirmed
Petitioner Soco argued that under Policy No. 6of the Ministry of Labor and
Employment (MOLE),the Regional Director has no jurisdiction to hearand decide
unfair labor practice cases becausesuch belongs to the Conciliation Section of
theRegional Office of the MOLE. In short, such casesshould be first resolved by the
Labor Arbiter andnot the Regional Director. Furthermore, Socoasserts that the
Deputy Minister of Labor violatedthe constitutional provision of security of tenure of
employees and that assuming that he violated thecompany rule, he cannot be
dismissed because hisviolation only minimal and did not hamper theoperations of
MERCO.
Issue1:

Whether the Regional Director has noauthority to decide the unfair labor practice
cases
HELD1: NO
After voluntarily submitting a cause and encounteringan adverse decision on the
merits, its too late for theloser to question the jurisdiction or the power of
thecourt.In the CAB, in the initial hearing conducted by theRegional Director, it was
agreed by the parties toconsolidate the 2 cases considering that both casesconcern
the same parties and the issues involved areinterrelated. Petitioner Soco obviously
accepted the jurisdiction of the Regional Director by presenting hisevidence. By
having asked for affirmative relief,without challenging the Regional Director's power
tohear and try his complaint for unfair labor practice, hecannot rightfully now
challenge the resolution made insaid cases by the same Director, based on the
latter'salleged lack of jurisdiction.
Issue2:
Whether petitioner can avail the security of tenure
HELD2:
It is the prerogative of an employer company toprescribe reasonable rules and
regulations necessaryor proper for the conduct of its business and to providecertain
disciplinary measures in order to implementsaid rules and to assure that the same
would becomplied with. A rule prohibiting employees fromusing company vehicles
for private purpose withoutauthority from management is, from our viewpoint,
areasonable one.The Court is not unmindful of the fact that petitionerhas, as he
says, been employed with petitionerCompany for eighteen (18) years. On this
singularconsideration, the
Court deems it proper to affordsome equitable relief to petitioner due to thepast
services rendered by him to MERCO
.
Thus, it is but appropriate that petitioner should be given by respondent MERCO,
separation pay, equivalent to onemonth salary for every year of his service to said
Company.
WHEREFORE, PETITION IS DENIED but MERCO isnevertheless, ordered to grant Soco
hisseparation pay