REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

JANE DOE,
Petitioner,

VS CA GR NO.______________

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

DIAGEO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION
Respondents.
X---------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

COME NOW PETITIONER JANE DOE, through the undersigned

counsels, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully state that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The subject matter of this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court is the assailed resolution of the NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) dated March 20, 2017 that denied the
Motion for Reconsideration (referred to as ANNEX A) of its January 25,
2017 (referred to as ANNEX B) decision that AFFIRMED the decision of
the LABOR ARBITER dated December 21, 2016 (referred to as ANNEX C)
for lack of merit.

For the record and convenience, the herein petitioner Jane Doe adopts,
by incorporation and reference, all the allegation and arguments stated, as
well as all the supporting documents annexed in the the main position paper,
the reply and the rejoinder.

Petitioner prays for the Honorable Court to set aside the decision of
the NLRC and grant back wages and other damages being the fair order in
the administration of justice.

PARTIES
 Petitioner Jane Doe is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and
represented by CMPT Law offices with postal address at Unit 1234 Golden
State Bldg, Sampaloc, Manila;

Public Respondent NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (NLRC) is a quasi-judicial body tasked to promote and
maintain industrial peace by resolving labor and management disputes
involving both local and overseas workers through compulsory arbitration
and alternative modes of dispute resolution. It is attached to the Department
of Labor and Employment for program and policy coordination with duties
and responsibilities pursuant to law duly represented by its CHAIRMAN
Jay Lowe, of legal age, Filipino with postal address at NLRC OFFICE,
Quezon City, where he may be served the summons and other processes of
this Honorable Court;

Private respondent Diageo Philippines Corporation is a corporation

duly organized and registered under the laws of the Philippines, represented
by its President, John Down, of legal age , Filipino, single, with an office
address at 1634 Jupiter St. Taft, Manila, where he/she may be served the
summons and other processes of this Honorable Court.

TIMELINESS OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION

On February 23, 2017, the petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration of the decision of the NLRC dated February 14, 2017.

On March 20, 2017, the petitioner had received the assailed NLRC
decision denying the motion for reconsideration. This petition is timely filed
because it is still within the time frame allowed by law, which is 60 days
from receipt of the assailed decision.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

DISCUSSION
1. Petitioner Jane Doe is a bottling staff at respondent Diageo Philippines
Corporation (Diageo); and her work includes access to the storage room for
the inventory of product, checking the initial production of the bottling
process and the final output regarding the quality of the bottles for Smirnoff
and Baileys;

2. Jane is a member of the company union for rank and file employees,
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Diageo (Union). It is recorded that all rank and
file employees in the Calamba plant are members of the Union.

3. On October 28, 2016 at about 8:00pm in the premises of the Calamba plant,
Jane subjected herself in the standard company policy of being inspected
before leaving the gates of the factory/plant. Epifanio Delos Santos, the
guard on duty inspecting Jane, saw five pieces of small sample bottles with
no sticker or marking of the brand,that looks like a pocket size Smirnoff
anniversary sampler which will be out in the market for the first time on
December, at the bottom pocket of her backpack. The guard on duty
confiscated the five pocket bottles and made a report to the management
regarding the incident.

4. The next day, Jane received a show cause notice from Diageo through its
Human Resource Department, for the violation of the Diageos Code of
Conduct, xxx G. 5. Any act constituting theft or robbery, or any attempt
to commit theft or robbery, of any company property or other associates
property. Penalty: Dismissal. She was directed to write an explanation
regarding the incident and why she should not be dismissed.

5. Jane submitted her explanation and was suspended for 15 days.

6. In her explanation, she stated that she found the bottles in the trash bins near
the Research and Development Department, and thought she could take
them home since it was a reject that was already thrown away.
7. Upon the lapse of her suspension, Jane received a letter of termination and
notice of disciplinary action.

8. Jane informed the union of what happened and they asked the management
for reconsideration but was denied after the first conference.

9. On November 25, 2016, an action was filed against Diageo for illegal
dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement and damages. They alleged that
there was no malicious intent in getting the bottles in the trash and should
not constitute malicious misconduct. That although there was admission that
she did took the bottles from the trash bin, they allege that it should not
amount to a termination.

10.Diageo maintained that it was grave misconduct and the Code of Conduct is
clear. Moreover, motive or intent is irrelevant.

11.On December 21, 2016, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint of Jane
and held that she indeed committed a serious violation of the companys
policies amounting to serious misconduct, a just cause for terminating an
employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter likewise
upheld the right of the company to terminate Jane on the ground of loss of
confidence or breach of trust.

12.On January 25, 2017, Jane filed an appeal but the NLRC denied the appeal
and affirmed its decision dated February 14, 2017 the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. The NLRC held that Jane admitted that she knows the standard
policy of being inspected before leaving the companys premises, that there
is a rule in the Code of Conduct stating regarding theft or to commit one by
taking any company property, and that such violation will be penalized by
dismissal. The NLRC held that she was aware but she still did what she did,
and such intent is irrelevant. Those bottles are still company property
although she found it in the trash bins. Thus, the NLRC denied the appeal. It
also denied the Motion for Reconsideration last March 20, 2017.
13.As to the issue of due process, the pertinent portion of the Decision of the
NLRC reads:

Complainants dismissal too, was with due process. Procedural due

process only requires employers to furnish their errant employees
written notices stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the
grounds for their dismissal and to hear their side of the story
(Mendoza vs. NLRC, 310 SCRA 846 [1999]). Complainants claim
that the show cause letter did not pass the stringent requirement of the
law is belied by her admission in her position paper. By complainants
own admission then, it is clear that she was furnished a written notice
informing her of the particular act constituting the ground for her
dismissal and that x x x her side of the story [was heard]. Evidently
then, complainant was afforded due process prior to her dismissal.

14.The dispositive portion of the Decision of the NLRC reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainants appeal is
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiters assailed
Decision in the above-entitled case is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto. SO ORDERED.

ISSUE

The herein petitioner respectfully submits that the NLRC gravely

abused his discretion and committed serious errors of fact and law which, if
not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the
appellant, and that the petitioner was illegally dismissed without due process
and just cause.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, above premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Honorable Court to a WRIT OF CERTIORARI after due
consideration and deliberation on the issues raised by the petitioner.
 Other reliefs just and equitable the premises are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila, May 10, 2017.

CMPT LAW OFFICE

Unit 1234 Golden State Bldg, Sampaloc, Manila
By:

DIANA ROLA CASANO

IBP NO. LIFETIME NO. 24324
PTR NO. 13435; Jan16; Bulacan
ROLL NO. 23433
MCLE NO. 243434; 7/8/16

Copy furnished:

Chairman xxxxxxxx
NLRC, Second Division
Quezon City

VERIFICATION
AND
ANTI-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATION

Jane Doe is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and represented by

CMPT Law offices with postal address at Unit 1234 Golden State Bldg,
Sampaloc, Manila, under oath, depose:

That I am the complainant-appellant in the foregoing Petition for

Certiorari; that I caused the preparation thereof; that I have read its contents;
and that the same are true and correct of my own direct/personal knowledge
and based on authentic records.

Further, pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in

relation to the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, I hereby certify that I have
not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; and that if I should hereafter learn that other similar
or related actions or proceedings has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Commission.

Manila, May 10, 2017.

JANE DOE
Affiant/Appellant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME in Manila on May

10, 2017, affiant showing his competent proof of identity as follows: LTO
Drivers License No. DYC54668 expiring on January 15, 2018.

Notary Public

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017.

Copy Furnished:

Atty. xxx
Atty. xxx
Counsel for Respondents-Appellees
Xxxxx

Reg. Rec. No.

Date PO
 EXPLANATION

A copy of this pledging is served on the adverse counsel via

registered mail instead of via personal service due to the urgency of filing
the same and due to the distance of the law office address of the adverse
counsel.

XXXX

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Jane Doe is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and represented by

CMPT Law offices with postal address at Unit 1234 Golden State Bldg,
Sampaloc, Manila, under oath, depose:

That I am the complainant-appellant in the foregoing Petition for

Certiorari;

That on May 10, 2017 I served a copy of the foregoing Petition for
Certiorari on the adverse counsel in the instant case via registered mail
with return card, to wit:

Atty. xxx
Atty. xxx
Counsel for Respondents
Xxxxxx
Reg. Rec. No. ______________________
Date____________ PO ____________

That the original of the aforementioned registry receipt is attached

above, opposite the names of the adverse counsel to prove the foregoing
statement.

Manila City, May 10, 2017.

JANE DOE
Complainant-Appellant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME in Manila on May

10, 2017, affiant showing his competent proof of identity as follows: LTO
Drivers License No. DYC54668 expiring on January 15, 2018.

Notary
Public
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.

Series of 2017