case digest
LABOR CASE DIGEST
TERMINATION - JUST CAUSE
Serious Misconduct
Maribago Resort vs. Dual, July 20, 2010
G.R. No. 180660 July 20, 2010
Facts: On January 5, 2005, a group of Japanese guests and their companions dined at Maribago Beach Resort’s Poolbar/Restaurant. Captain waiter Alvin Hiyas took their dinner orders comprising of 6 sets of lamb and 6 sets of fish. As per company procedure, Hiyas forwarded one copy of the order slip to the kitchen and another copy to Nito Dual. Pursuant to the order slip, fourteen (14) sets of dinner were prepared by the chef. Hiyas and waiter Genaro Mission, Jr. served 12 set dinners to the guests, and another 2 sets to their guides free of charge (total of 14 sets of dinner). After consuming their dinner, the guests paid the amount indicated in their bill and thereafter left in a hurry. The receipt show that only P3,036.00 was remitted by cashier Dual corresponding to 6 sets of dinner. A discrepancy was found between the order slip and the receipt issued which prompted petitioner Maribago to ask for an explanation from Dual and the waiters why they should not be penalized. Clarificatory hearings were made and it was found out that the guests gave P10,500.00 to Mission as payment for the bill of P10,100.00. It was discovered later that only P3,036.00 was entered by Dual in the cash register. The rest of the payment was missing. The original transaction receipt for P10,100.00 was likewise missing and in its place, only a transaction receipt for P3.036.00 was registered. Upon verification, it was also found out that the order slip was tampered by Alcoseba to make it appear that only six (6) set dinners were ordered. Respondent Dual was found guilty of dishonesty for his fabricated statements and for asking one of the waiters (Mission) to corroborate his allegations. He was terminated for dishonesty based on his admission that he altered the order slip.
Dual then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found that respondent’s termination was without valid cause and ruled that respondent is entitled to separation pay. The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals however reversed the decision and resolution of the NLRC. Finding no sufficient valid cause to justify respondent’s dismissal, the Court of Appeals ordered petitioner to pay respondent full backwages and separation pay. Thus a petition for review under Rule 45 was filed in the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed.
HELD: No. Petitioner’s evidence proved that respondent is guilty of dishonesty and of stealing money entrusted to him as cashier. Instead of reporting P10,100.00 as payment by the guests for their dinner, respondent cashier only reported P3,036.00 as shown by the receipt which he admitted to have issued. Respondent’s acts constitute serious misconduct which is a just cause for termination under the law. Theft committed by an employee is a valid reason for his dismissal by the employer. Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help workers and employees continue with their employment or to mitigate the penalties imposed on them, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property, petitioner’s income in this case, are a different matter.
Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Mangagawa sa Keihin v. Keihin Phils Corp., GR No. 171115, August 9, 2010
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Petitioner Helen Valenzuela (Helen) was a production associate in respondent Keihin Philippines Corporation (Keihin), a company engaged in the production of intake manifold and throttle body used in motor vehicles manufactured by Honda.
It is a standard operating procedure of Keihin to subject all its employees to reasonable search before they leave the company premises. On September 5, 2003, while Helen was about to leave the company premises, she saw a packing tape near her work area and placed it inside her bag because it would be useful in her transfer of residence. When the lady guard on duty inspected Helen’s bag, she found the packing tape inside her bag. The guard confiscated it and submitted an incident report dated September 5, 2003 to the Guard-in-Charge, who, in turn, submitted a memorandum regarding the incident to the Human Resources and Administration Department on the same date.
The following day, or on September 6, 2003, respondent company issued a show cause notice to Helen accusing her of violating F.2 of the company’s Code of Conduct, which says, "Any act constituting theft or robbery, or any attempt to commit theft or robbery, of any company property or other associate’s property. Penalty: D (dismissal)." Helen’s supervisor, called her to his office and directed her to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Helen, in her explanation, admitted the offense and even manifested that she would accept whatever penalty would be imposed upon her. She, however, did not reckon that respondent company would terminate her services for her admitted offense.
On September 26, 2003, Helen received a notice of disciplinary action informing her that Keihin has decided to terminate her services. On October 15, 2003, petitioners filed a complaint against respondent for illegal dismissal, non-payment of 13th month pay, with a prayer for reinstatement and payment of full backwages, as well as moral and exemplary damages. Petitioners alleged that Helen’s act of taking the packing tape did not constitute serious misconduct, because the same was done with no malicious intent. Keihin, on the other hand, maintained that Helen was guilty of serious misconduct because there was a deliberate act of stealing from the company.
The Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision dismissing the complaint of illegal dismissal. He brushed aside petitioners’ argument that the penalty imposed on Helen was disproportionate to the offense committed, and held that she indeed committed a serious violation of the company’s policies amounting to serious misconduct. The Labor Arbiter further held that Keihin observed the requirements of procedural due process in implementing the dismissal of Helen. He ruled that the following circumstances showed that the company observed the requirements of procedural due process: a) there was a show cause letter informing Helen of the charge of theft and requiring her to submit an explanation; b) there was an administrative hearing giving her an opportunity to be heard; and c) the respondent company furnished her with notice of termination stating the facts of her dismissal, the offense for which she was found guilty, and the grounds for her dismissal.20
On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and affirmed in toto the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. It held that petitioners admitted in their Position Paper that Helen took the packing tape strewn on the floor near her production line within the company premises. By the strength of petitioners’ admission, the NLRC held that theft is a valid reason for Helen’s dismissal.
However, in a Resolution dated November 2, 2005, the CA dismissed the petition outright for not having been filed by an indispensable party in interest under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether, in taking the packing tape for her own personal use, Helen committed serious misconduct, which is a just cause for her dismissal from service. (substantive aspect of the case)
2. Whether the petition of petitioners is out rightly dismissible for not having been filed by an indispensable party in interest (procedural aspect of the case)
HELD:
1. Yes. Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination. Misconduct is defined as "the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment." For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law, "(a) it must be serious, (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer."
In the case at bar, Helen took the packing tape with the thought that she could use it for her own personal purposes. When Helen was asked to explain in writing why she took the tape, she stated, "Kumuha po ako ng isang packing tape na gagamitin ko sa paglilipat ng gamit ko sa bago kong lilipatang bahay." In other words, by her own admission, there was intent on her part to benefit herself when she attempted to bring home the packing tape in question.
It is noteworthy that prior to this incident, there had been several cases of theft and vandalism involving both respondent company’s property and personal belongings of other employees. In order to address this issue of losses, respondent company issued two memoranda implementing an intensive inspection procedure and reminding all employees that those who will be caught stealing and performing acts of vandalism will be dealt with in accordance with the company’s Code of Conduct. Despite these reminders, Helen took the packing tape and was caught during the routine inspection. All these circumstances point to the conclusion that it was not just an error of judgment on the part of Helen, but a deliberate act of theft of company property.
The petitioners also argue that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the offense committed since the value of the thing taken is very minimal. Petitioners cite the case of Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission where Arnelio M. Clarete (Clarete) was found to have willfully breached the trust and confidence reposed in him by taking a bottle of lighter fluid. In said case, we refrained from imposing the supreme penalty of dismissal since the employee had no violations "in his eight years of service and the value of the lighter fluid is very minimal compared to his salary.
After a closer study of both cases, we are convinced that the case of Caltex is different from the case at hand. Although both Clarete and Helen had no prior violations, the former had a clean record of eight years with his employer. On the other hand, Helen was not even on her second year of service with Keihin when the incident of theft occurred. And what further distinguishes the instant case from Caltex is that respondent company was dealing with several cases of theft, vandalism, and loss of company and employees’ property when the incident involving Helen transpired.
Regarding the requirement of procedural due process in dismissal of employees, petitioners argue that the first notice failed to explain the charge being leveled against Helen. According to the petitioners, the notice was vague and lacked sufficient definitiveness.
2. It is clear that petitioners failed to include the name of the dismissed employee Helen Valenzuela in the caption of their petition for certiorari filed with the CA as well as in the body of the said petition. Instead, they only indicated the name of the labor union Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin (NLMK-OLALIA) as the party acting on behalf of Helen. As a result, the CA rightly dismissed the petition based on a formal defect.
Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants." If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness.31 It is "precisely ‘when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should be dismissed.’ The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present."32 The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there is want of indispensable parties.
Loss of Trust and Confidence
Century Canning Corp., et. al. v. Ramil, GR No. 171630, August 8, 2010
FACTS:
Petitioner Century Canning Corporation, a company engaged in canned food manufacturing, employed respondent Vicente Randy Ramil in August 1993 as technical specialist. Prior to his dismissal, his job included, among others, the preparation of the purchase requisition (PR) forms and capital expenditure (CAPEX) forms, as well as the coordination with the purchasing department regarding technical inquiries on needed products and services of petitioner's different departments.
On 3 March, 1999, respondent prepared a CAPEX form for external fax modems and terminal server, per order of Technical Operations Manager Jaime Garcia, Jr. and endorsed it to Marivic Villanueva, Secretary of Executive Vice-President Ricardo T. Po, for the latter's signature. The CAPEX form, however, did not have the complete details and some required signatures. The following day, with the form apparently signed by Po, respondent transmitted it to Purchasing Officer Lorena Paz in Taguig Main Office. Paz processed the paper and found that some details in the CAPEX form were left blank. She also doubted the genuineness of the signature of Po, as appearing in the form. Paz then transmitted the CAPEX form to Purchasing Manager Virgie Garcia and informed her of the questionable signature of Po. Consequently, the request for the equipment was put on hold due to Po's forged signature. However, due to the urgency of purchasing badly needed equipment, respondent was ordered to make another CAPEX form, which was immediately transmitted to the Purchasing Department.
Suspecting him to have committed forgery, respondent was asked to explain in writing the events surrounding the incident. He vehemently denied any participation in the alleged forgery. Respondent was, thereafter, suspended on 21 April 1999. Subsequently, he received a Notice of Termination from Armando C. Ronquillo, on 20 May 1999, for loss of trust and confidence.
Respondent, on May 24, 1999, filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against petitioner and its officers before the Labor Arbiter (LA).
LA Potenciano S. Canizares rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Aggrieved by the LA's finding, respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC First Division in its Decision set aside the ruling of LA Canizares. The NLRC declared respondent's dismissal to be illegal and directed petitioner to reinstate respondent with full backwages and seniority rights and privileges. It found that petitioner failed to show clear and convincing evidence that respondent was responsible for the forgery of the signature of Po in the CAPEX form.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. To respondent's surprise and dismay, the NLRC reversed itself and rendered a new Decision upholding LA Canizares' dismissal of his complaint. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC.
Frustrated by this turn of events, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA rendered judgment in favor of respondent and reinstated the earlier decision of the NLRC. It ordered petitioner to reinstate respondent, without loss of seniority rights and privileges, and to pay respondent full backwages from the time his employment was terminated up to the time of the finality of its decision. The CA, likewise, remanded the case to the LA for the computation of backwages of the respondent. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent was validly dismissed.
RULING:
Yes.
Petitioner's main allegation is that there are factual and legal grounds constituting substantial proof that respondent was clearly involved in the forgery of the CAPEX form. Petitioner insists that the mere existence of a basis for believing that respondent employee has breached the trust and confidence of his employer suffices for his dismissal. Finally, petitioner maintains that aside from respondent's involvement in the forgery of the CAPEX form, his past violations of company rules and regulations are more than sufficient grounds to justify his termination from employment.
However, the record of the case is bereft of evidence that would clearly establish Ramil's involvement in the forgery. They did not even submit any affidavit of witness or present any during the hearing to substantiate their claim against Ramil.
Respondent alleged in his position paper that after preparing the CAPEX form on 3 March 1999, he endorsed it to Marivic Villanueva for the signature of the Executive Vice-President Ricardo T. Po. The next day, respondent received the CAPEX form containing the signature of Po. Petitioner never controverted these allegations in the proceedings before the NLRC and the CA despite its opportunity to do so. Petitioner's belated allegations in its reply filed before this Court that Marivic Villanueva denied having seen the CAPEX form cannot be given credit. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change the same on appeal, because to permit him to do so would be unfair to the adverse party.
Thus, if respondent retrieved the form on March 4, 1999 with the signature of Po, it can be correctly inferred that he is not the forger. Had the CAPEX form been returned to respondent without Po's signature, Villanueva or any officer of the petitioner's company could have readily noticed the lack of signature, and could have easily attested that the form was unsigned when it was released to respondent.
Furthermore, while employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the services of employees who perform functions which by their nature require the employers' full trust and confidence and the mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust of the employer is sufficient, this does not mean that the said basis may be arbitrary and unfounded.
The right of an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground that it has lost its trust and confidence in him must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whim, caprice or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.
G.R. No. 164640 June 13, 2008
CYNTHIA GANA, petitioner,
vs.
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ABOITIZ HAULERS, INC., and CARL ** WOZNIAK, respondents.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. :
FACTS : On December 1, 1996, Cynthia Gana (petitioner) commenced her employment as marketing manager of Total Distribution and Logistics System, Inc. (TDLSI), another sister company of Aboitiz Transport, Aboitiz Container and Aboitiz Haullers, respondent company. As marketing manager, petitioner received a monthly salary of P20,000.00 plus a monthly allowance of P15,000.00; and she availed herself of the company car plan.
On August 15, 1997, petitioner was transferred from TDLSI to respondent company retaining the same position as marketing manager.
On April 21, 1998, petitioner was required by private respondent Carl Wozniak (Wozniak), the Senior Vice-President and General Manager of Aboitiz Haulers, to explain in writing why she should not be penalized for having violated company rules on offenses against company interest. Wozniak directed her to appear in an investigation to be conducted by the company and defend herself with respect to the electronic mails (e-mails) she sent to an official of Trans-America, divulging various confidential information about the business operations and transactions of Aboitiz Container which are detrimental to the said company.
On April 24, 1998, petitioner, through her counsel, sent a letter to Wozniak denying the charges against her.
In a letter dated May 22, 1998, Wozniak informed petitioner that her explanations during the investigation with respect to the charges leveled against her were found to be unacceptable; that she was found guilty of Betrayal of Confidential Information which constitutes sufficient reason for the company to lose the high degree of trust and confidence which it reposed upon her as its manager; and that as a result, her employment with respondent company has been terminated.
Petitioner then filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Quezon City. On June 14, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision finding respondent company guilty of illegally dismissing petitioner.
On appeal, the NLRC set aside the Decision of the LA. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the NLRC in its Order promulgated on May 3, 2002.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA questioning the Decision and Order of the NLRC.On April 30, 2004, the CA promulgated its presently assailed Decision dismissing the petition for certiorari and affirming the questioned Decision and Order of the NLRC.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated July 26, 2004.
ISSUE : Whether Petitioner is illegally dismissed.
HELD :
HELD: NO. Petitioner relies on the conclusion of the LA that there is no sufficient evidence to justify petitioner's termination from employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. However, evidence shows otherwise. The LA cited private respondent's letter terminating petitioner from her employment to prove that respondent company failed to show sufficient evidence to establish the charges against petitioner. Contrary to the conclusion of the LA, it is very clear in the said letter that respondent company enumerated the facts and circumstances upon which petitioner's termination was based. Pertinent portions of the letter are as follows:
Last April 22, 1998, an investigation was conducted in order to give you the chance to present your side of matters that were contained in the letter to explain dated April 21, 1998 that was sent to you and which you received last April 21, 1998 also.
During the said investigation, it was established that:
a) You sent email messages/reports to Leslie Leow of Transamerica last March 9, 1998 and March 25, 1998 regarding the company's internal problems with the truckers, depot and special permit to load (spl) and the rates charge[d] by ACSI to its customers.
b) You sent again email message last April 16, 1998 to Leslie Leow concerning the complaints of Mr. Carmelo Garcia regarding the company's poor services which puts the company's credibility to deliver good service in question.
c) You have literally provided Transamerica information about the inefficiencies and inflexibility of the company in catering to the needs of the customer.
d) The Officers of the company only learned of the complaints of Mr. Carmelo Garcia because of your email messages to Transamerica.
e) You declared that your loyalty is to Transamerica and not to your employer, AHI.
The settled rule is that the mere existence of a basis for believing that a managerial employee has breached the trust of the employer justifies dismissal.
Petitioner does not deny having sent the subject e-mails to Trans-America. The Court finds no error in the conclusion of the CA that petitioner's intention in sending these e-mails was to inform Trans-America of the supposed inefficiency in the operations of respondent company as well as the company's poor services to its clients. These pieces of information necessarily diminish the credibility of respondent company and besmirch its reputation. In fact, Trans-America wrote Wozniak expressing its disappointment in the services that the Aboitiz companies were rendering.
Hence, respondent company cannot be faulted for having lost its trust and confidence in petitioner and in refusing to retain her as its employee considering that her continued employment is patently inimical to respondent company's interest. The law, in protecting the rights of labor, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of an employer company which itself is possessed of rights that must be entitled to recognition and respect.
Santos vs. Shing Hung Plastics Co., Inc., Sept. 29, 2008
MICHAEL V. SANTOS, Petitioner,- versus -SHING HUNG PLASTICS, CO., INC. and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents.
Facts:
Respondent Shing Hung Plastics Co., Inc. hired Michael V. Santos (petitioner) as administrative assistant whose responsibilities included purchasing equipment and supplies of the corporation.
He was, by Memorandum, asked to explain within 24 hours why, in the purchase of silkscreen and paint thinner from JPN, Inc., only acknowledgment receipts, instead of official receipts, were received and recorded by the corporation’s accounting department.
Petitioner explained that the purchase of the above-stated items were urgent, and the thinner was purchased from JPN Inc., instead of the corporation’s then supplier Alto Chemicals, because the former charged a lower price.
On March 11, 2002, Chueh ordered him to rent a forklift and crane to move a 26-ton machinery of the corporation, hence, he asked the firm Bormahueco for a quotation thereof. The quotation given by Bormahueco was found to be too high by Chueh who thus ordered him to get one from another firm. Roos Industrial Construction, Inc. (Roos) quoted a lower rental rate of P28,000, hence, he, on the instruction of Chan and Chueh, asked the accounting department to issue a check for the purpose.
On April 2, 2002, he was informed of the termination of his employment on account of "money involvement with suppliers like JPN and Roos etc."
The corporation went on to claim as follows:
Upon investigation by Chueh, it was found out that petitioner manipulated the price of purchased items and earned commissions therefrom; that petitioner had been an employee of JPN, Inc. "but was forced to resign due to some irregu
