CASE TITLE: JEROME M. DAABAY vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.

DATE: August 19, 2013

PONENTE: J. Reyes
DIGEST BY: John Michael Vida
TOPIC: Separation of Powers The Role of the Judiciary
FACTS:
The case stems from an illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and ULP complaint filed by Daabay,
a regular employee of Coca-Cola for 8 years, against the company. According to the case,
Daabays employment was terminated on June 2005, on account of allegations in an affidavit
from a certain Cesar Sorin, that Daabay was part of a conspiracy that allowed the pilferage
of company property. Such losses were confirmed in an inventory and audit. Daabay was given
a Notice to Explain with Preventive Suspension, and Daabay complied to said Notice, denying
any participation in the alleged conspiracy. After a formal investigation, Coca-Cola found
Daabay guilty of pilferage, serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence, and therefore
dismissed Daabay through a Notice of Termination. Hence, Daabay filed of the complaint in the
LA.
LA: favored Daabay, ordered payment of backwages and separation pay instead of
reinstatement. The LA found that Daabays participation in the conspiracy was not proven by
substantial evidence.
NLRC: reversed LA, found that there was a reasonable and well- founded basis to dismiss
[Daabay], not only for serious misconduct, but also for breach of trust or loss of confidence
arising from such company losses. However, NLRC still awarded retirement benefits in favor of
Daabay, stating that there was a need to humanize the severe effects of dismissal and tilt
the scales of justice in favor of labor as a measure of equity and compassionate social justice.
CA: granted the writ of certiorari petitioned by Coca-Cola, and agreed with Coca-Cola in stating
that the award of retirement benefits lacked basis considering that Daabay was dismissed for
just cause.
As a result of the CA decision, Daabay appealed to the SC.
ISSUE/S:
WON Daabay may revive the issue of WON his dismissal had factual and legal bases despite
the assailed CA decision being confined only to the issue of WON Daabay was entitled to
retirement benefits as granted.
[This was because Daabay included in his plea to the SC an affirmation of the LAs Decision,
with the modification to include: (a) his allowances and other benefits or their monetary
equivalent in the computation of his backwages; (b) his actual reinstatement; and (c)
damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses.]
HELD:
NO. Petition of Daabay was denied.
RATIO:
The Court first took note of the fact that the appeal was brought to the CA not by Daabay, but
by Coca-Cola, and was limited to the issue of WON retirement benefits were proper in Daabays
case. The correctness of the NLRCs decision on Daabays dismissal was already beyond the
appellate courts authority to modify.
Citing Andaya v. NLRC, the Court emphasized that a party who has not appealed from a
decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he had
obtained from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal.
Also, the Court cited Yano v. Sanchez, stating that the entrenched procedural rule in this
jurisdiction is that a party who did not appeal cannot assign such errors as are designed to
have the judgment modified. All that he can do is to make a counter-assignment of errors or to
argue on issues raised below only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor.

Due process prevents the grant of additional awards to parties who did not appeal. Considering
that Daabay had not yet appealed from the NLRCs Resolution to the CA, his plea for the
modification of the NLRCs findings was then misplaced. The Court held that if it were to review
all matters that are raised in the petition, it would basically tolerate what Daabay was barred
to do before the appellate court.
Daabay justifies his plea for relief by stating that he has also filed a subsequent MR of the
NLRCs Resolution, but the same was not acted upon by the NLRC. The Court held, however,
that the allegation was still insufficient to allow him to insert his plea for reliefs alongside the
assailed CA decision. Daabay was also noted to have failed to insert the MR which he allegedly
filed with the NLRC and seek NLRCs resolution on the matter even though 2 years have passed
without the MR being unresolved.
Even granting that the MR was filed with the NLRC, the SC noted that the NLRC shall first be
given the opportunity to review its findings and rulings on the issue of the legality of Daabays
dismissal, and then correct them should it find that it erred in its disposition. The SC cannot, by
this petition, pre-empt the action which the NLRC, and the CA in case of an appeal, may take
on the matter.
[NOTE: I did not discuss the labor (retirement) aspect of the case as it was not relevant to the
topic at hand. Please refer to the full original case for the SCs discussion on the non-eligibility
of Daabay for retirement pay.]