ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 28 2005.

G.R. No. 148205 ( Coca Cola Bottlers, Philippines, Inc. vs. Kapisanan Ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Coca-Cola-FFW and Florentino Ramirez. )

On February 28, 2005, the Court rendered a Decision, ¹ the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED . The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 30, 2001, affirming the assailed resolution of the NLRC, is SET ASIDE . The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 25, 2000 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the respondent is meted the penalty of two (2) months suspension. No costs.

SO ORDERED .

The respondents then filed a Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration ² dated April 5, 2005. They contend that while the Court has correctly set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the assailed resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, the resolution adverted to in said Decision which should be set aside should be the earlier Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 25, 2000, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed and the assailed resolutions of the public respondent are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. ³

On the other hand, what should have been affirmed with modification is the Resolution ⁴ of the Court of Appeals promulgated on January 30, 2001, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioners' motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED, and Our decision of 25 October 2000 is vacated. The assailed resolutions of public respondent dated September 20, 1999 and December 21, 1999, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is rendered, ordering the respondent company to reinstate petitioner Florentine A. Ramirez to his job as driver-helper without loss of seniority and other rights, and to pay him his full backwages, allowances, and other benefits until his reinstatement, without diminution, or their monetary equivalent, plus 10% as attorney's fees. Costs against private respondent.

SO ORDERED. ⁵

Likewise, the petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration dated April 12, 2005 praying that the Court annul its decision considering that respondent Ramirez's infractions merit his dismissal from the service; thus, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated July 31, 1998 and the September 20, 1999 Resolution of the NLRC, dismissing Ramirez's complaint for lack of merit, be reinstated.

The Court then required both parties to file their respective comments.

After a careful consideration of the motions for reconsideration and the comments filed by the parties, the Court finds no substantial arguments or cogent reason to deviate from our Decision dated February 28, 2005. We sustain our ruling that respondent Florentine Ramirez, by his acts and omissions, committed irregularities in the performance of his duties, but dismissal from the service is too severe a penalty. The Court affirms the penalty of suspension of two (2) months imposed on Ramirez.

Considering the foregoing, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated April 12, 2005 is DENIED . The respondent's Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED . Let the fallo of the Decision dated February 28, 2005� be corrected to read as follows:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 25, 2000 affirming the assailed resolution of the NLRC is SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 30, 2001 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the respondent is meted the penalty of Two (2) months suspension. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court