SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 211522, September 04, 2019
J' MARKETING CORPORATION, ROGELIO U. SOYAO, EVP-GENERAL MANAGER, PEPITO P. ESTRELLAN, KALIBO BRANCH MANAGER, PETITIONERS, v. FERNANDO S. IGUIZ, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
TO : FERNANDO IGUIZ (CI Collector - Kalibo Branch)On 12 March 2007, Iguiz received the memorandum of termination. Aggrieved, Iguiz filed a Complaint22 for illegal dismissal with money claims with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI in Kalibo, Aldan.
DATE : MARCH 07, 2007
SUBJECT: CONCLUSION ON YOUR CASE
An investigation conducted by the company has indicated beyond any doubt that you collected the amount[s] of P15,300.00 and $29.00 from our various customers without issuance of Official Receipts and the non[-] remittance of these collection[s] to our office.
This conclusion on your illegal activity is supported by the copy of the following:You were given the opportunity to present your side, but it is very obvious that the versions you presented were not the truth. This are itself [sic] consist of dishonesty on your part.
- Notarized affidavit of customers[.]
- Administrative investigation report[.]
- Audit Report from your Credit Supervisor Marlon Sonio[.]
- Your Branch Manager memo dated February 08, 2007 instructing you to explain your receiving of payments] from customer [s] without issuance of Official Receipt[s].
- Your response memo dated February 12, 2007.
Remember you also have another offense of short collection of P5,811.00 covering Dec. 04, 2006 to Dec. 09, 2006 in which case is supported by the following:Be informed, dishonesty is an offense under our Company's Code of Ethics Class D offense with disciplinary measure of termination for the commission of first offense.
- Your Branch Manager memo to you dated Dec. 11, 2006 with subject: Short Collection.
- Your response memo dated Dec. 14, 2006 denying such misappropriation but claimed that same amount was washed out during the flood.
- Certification from the Office of the Punong Barangay of Poblacion declaring that Barangay Poblacion, Numancia, Aklan was not affected by flood by typhoon "Siniang."
- Joint Affidavit of your BM Pepito Estrellan and your AS Sianita Nazareta declaring your contradicting reasons about the short collection.
Also, your position as Credit Investigator/Collector required trust and confidence relating to the financial interest of the company and your non[-]observance to this procedure with respect to the fund under your control and custody constitutes breach on your part of the trust and confidence reposed to you by the management.
In this connection, be informed that your services as CI Collector of our Kalibo Branch is terminated with cause effective upon receipt of this memo, on the ground that you violated Art. 282. paragraph c of the Labor Code.21 (Underscoring in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. A NEW Decision is entered declaring the illegal dismissal of complainant.JMC filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution27 dated 31 July 2009.
Respondents J['] Marketing Corporation/Rogelio Soyao, EVP-General Manager/Pepito Estrellan, Kalibo Branch Manager are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay complainant the following:
1. Backwages P 131,606.00 2. Separation Pay 69,264.00 3. Moral Damages 20,000.00 4. Exemplary Damages 20.000.00 P 240,870.00 5. Attorney's Fees 24,087.00 TOTALP 264,957.00
SO ORDERED.26
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The February 27, 2009 Decision and July 31, 2009 Resolution of public respondent in NLRC Case No. VAC 09-000592-2008 are hereby AFFIRMED.JMC filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated 30 January 2014.
SO ORDERED.28
Art. 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:In the present case, JMC terminated the employment of Iguiz due to dishonesty and fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in him as provided under Article 282(c). The Labor Arbiter found that Iguiz was validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence while the NLRC and the CA found that JMC failed to provide the burden of proof necessary to show that the disrnissal was for a just cause.
- Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
- Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
- Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
- Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
- Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
[T]here is no substantial evidence that private respondent failed to issue official receipts for his collections totaling P15,300.00 and $29.00. The memorandum sent to private respondent enumerating supposed collections are bereft of transactional details. Moreover, as pointed out by private respondent who had denied the allegation, none of the supposed affected customers had ever filed any complaint against him for his purported failure to issue official receipts for the payments they made. The affidavits supposedly executed by the customers were belatedly obtained.We agree with the appellate court that JMC failed to prove by substantial evidence the loss of trust and confidence in Iguiz based on willful breach of trust. Aside from the summarized list submitted by JMC's credit supervisor Sonio on the alleged customer collection and incomplete remittance amounts of Iguiz, no other details were provided by JMC. Iguiz was not given an opportunity to question the report of Sonio and to check if there were supporting documents attached to the list. Neither were the customers affected presented nor did they come forward to personally attest to the collection and non-issuance of receipts. Also, JMC belatedly obtained the affidavits of said customers on 28 February 2007 or more than three weeks after the said report was given by Sonio to Estrellan. By then, the purported administrative investigation conducted by Estrellan on 8 February 2007 had already been concluded. Clearly, Iguiz was not sufficiently apprised of the allegations against him. He was also not given an opportunity to present his side, refute the charges, and confront the witnesses against him. Thus, JMC's justification for willful breach of trust as the basis for the dismissal was not convincingly established.
While it is true that loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes for termination, such loss of trust and confidence must have some basis. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. It is sufficient that there must only be some basis for such loss of confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe, if not to entertain, the moral conviction that the concerned employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.
Aside from the memorandum and the affidavits belatedly executed by supposed complainants, no other evidence had been adduced by petitioners to substantiate their allegation that private respondent committed the act imputed to him.31
Art. 277. Miscellaneous Provisions. — (a) x x x (b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer, xxx.On the other hand, Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code states:33
The law and the rules provide that the employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before dismissal from employment: (1) notice to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which the dismissal is sought, and (2) subsequent notice to inform him of the employer's decision to dismiss him. In addition to the notices, the employer must set a hearing or conference to give the employee an opportunity to present evidence and rebut the charges against him. The requirement of two notices and a hearing is mandatory; otherwise the order of dismissal is void.SEC. 2. Standards of due process; requirements of notice. — In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side. (b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against him. (c) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.
[T]he following should be considered in terminating the services of employees:In the present case, JMC sent Iguiz the first notice - a memorandum dated 8 February 2007 asking Iguiz to explain why he should not be reprimanded for loss of trust and confidence for receiving payments of P15,300 and $29 without issuing official receipts. Iguiz received this notice on 9 February 2007 and he was able to file a written reply on 12 February 2007 denying the allegation. JMC then sent Iguiz another notice - a memorandum dated 7 March 2007 terminating his employment. Iguiz received the termination notice on 12 March 2007.(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. "Reasonable opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint, xxx.
(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented against them by the management. During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement.
(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment. (Boldfacing in the original)
x x x. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to Ms other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.However, since reinstatement is no longer feasible, such as in the case of a clearly strained employer-employee relationship (limited to managerial positions and contracts of employment predicated on trust and confidence, such as in this case) or when the work or position formerly held by the dismissed employee simply no longer exists, separation pay can substitute for reinstatement.
Endnotes:
1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
2Rollo, pp. 53-62. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.
3 Id. at 64-65.
4 Id. at 143.
5 Id. at 144.
6 Also referred to in the records as Pepito Estrella.
7Rollo, pp. 145-146.
8 Id. at 148.
9 Id. at 149.
10 Id. at 150-163.
11 Id. at 185.
12 Id. at 165-166.
13 Id. at 186.
14 Id. at 168. See also p. 187.
15 Id. at 169.
16 Id. at 173-174.
17 Id. at 147.
18 See Certification dated 12 March 2007 of the PNP Chief of Police of Kalibo; id. at 170.
19 Id. at 171-172.
[20 Art. 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
x x x xx x x x
c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
21Rollo, pp. 171-172.
22 Id. at 135-136. Docketed as NLRC SRAB VI Case No. 06-03-026-Aklan-2007.
23 Id. at 193-196.
24 Id. at 197.
25 Id. at 114-130.
26 Id. at 129.
27 Id. at 132-134.
28 Id. at 61.
29Tagud v. BSM Crew Service Center Phils, Inc., G.R. No. 219370, 6 December 2017, 848 SCRA 176, 185.
30 290 Phil. 15, 24 (1992).
31Rollo, p. 58.
32Floren Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission, 497 Phil. 458, 472 (2005), citing Gabisay v. National Labor Relations Commission, 366 Phil. 593, 601 (1999).
33 Cited in Naranjo v. Biomedica Health Care, Inc., 695 Phil. 551, 563 (2012); Ailing v. Feliciano, 686 Phil. 889, 912-913 (2012); Perez v. Phil. Telegraph and Telephone Co., 602 Phil. 522, 536-537 (2009); King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 553 Phil. 108, 115 (2007).
34 Supra note 33, at 115-116. See also Perez v. Phil. Telegraph and Telephone Co., supra note 33.
35Rollo,p. 185.
36 Supra note 33, at 565.
37Rollo, p. 173.
38 See Santos v. Integrated Pharmaceutical, Inc., 789 Phil. 477, 493 (2016).