Scribd
Upload
73 views1 page

Jerry Mapili vs. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines:, Inc., GR 172506, July 27, 2011. First Division Del Castillo

Jerry Mapili was employed as a bus conductor by Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. He was caught by a field inspector giving a free ride to a passenger, who was the wife of one of his coworkers, in violation of company rules. Mapili had committed this violation two previous times. He was preventatively suspended and terminated after a formal investigation. Mapili filed a case claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter initially ruled in his favor but the NLRC dismissed the case, finding no merit. The court upheld the dismissal, finding that Mapili was aware his actions violated company rules but did so anyway without regard for his responsibilities to the company. His past violations were also considered in assessing liability for his current in

Uploaded by

nenenenene
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
73 views1 page

Jerry Mapili vs. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines:, Inc., GR 172506, July 27, 2011. First Division Del Castillo

Jerry Mapili was employed as a bus conductor by Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. He was caught by a field inspector giving a free ride to a passenger, who was the wife of one of his coworkers, in violation of company rules. Mapili had committed this violation two previous times. He was preventatively suspended and terminated after a formal investigation. Mapili filed a case claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter initially ruled in his favor but the NLRC dismissed the case, finding no merit. The court upheld the dismissal, finding that Mapili was aware his actions violated company rules but did so anyway without regard for his responsibilities to the company. His past violations were also considered in assessing liability for his current in

Uploaded by

nenenenene
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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

Jerry Mapili Vs. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., GR 172506, July 27, 2011.

First Division
Del Castillo

FACTS: Philippine Rabbit Bus Line, Inc. hired Mapil as a bus conductor. while on duty
en route from Manila to Alaminos, Pangasinan, petitioner was caught by PRBLI’s field
inspector extending a free ride to a lady passenger who boarded at Barangay Magtaking,
Labrador, Pangasinan. Upon order of the field inspector, the lady passenger, who
happened to be the wife of Julio Ricardo, petitioner’s co-employee and one of PRBLI’s
drivers, was immediately issued a passenger ticket for which she paid ₱50.00. He was
preventively suspended and was directed to appear in an administrative investigation.
A formal hearing was conducted during which he was given an opportunity to present
and explain his side. Consequently, through a memorandum dated November 9, 2001,
he was terminated from employment for committing a serious irregularity by extending
a free ride to a passenger in violation of company rules. Notably, that was already the
third time that petitioner committed said violation. He filed an illegal dismissal case
against the NLRC. Labor Arbiter ruled it as an illegal dismissal, but the NLRC reversed
the case and dismissed it for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Was Mapili illegally dismissed?

RULING: No. Based on this testimony, it is quite apparent that 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. Hence, as correctly found by
the CA, there was deliberate intent on his part to commit the violation in order to repay
a personal debt at the expense of the company. He chose to violate company rules for
his benefit without regard to his responsibilities to the company. Also, if not for the
inspector who discovered the incident, the company would have been defrauded by the
amount of fare. As record shows, this is not the first time that Mapili refused to collect
fares from passengers. In fact, this is already the third instance that he failed to collect
fares from the riding public. Although he 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy