ANNALISA B. LAUDENCIA, PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, RCBC SECURITIES, INC./DIOSDADO C. SALANG, RESPONDENTS.
BUESER, J.:
Culled from the records[1] are the following undisputed facts :
Petitioner Annalisa B. Laudencia (Laudencia, for brevity) started her employment with the private respondent sometime in 1994. She began as an accounts clerk and was promoted to Senior Clerk, Administrative Assistant, Operations Assistant and in 2009, she became First Officer or Section/Unit Head for Stock Position & Settlements.
On 12 January 2012, petitioner received from private respondent RCBC Securities, Inc. (the company, for brevity) a notice of preventive suspension imputing, among others, transfer out of GMA 7 shares of stock belonging to Mr. Rene Gozum and Amerigo Santos to the trading account of Joseph Valbuena as evidenced by petitioner’s initial in the transaction receipts.
In addition, petitioner was charged of falsely crediting Mr. Joseph Valbuena’s account of the payments made by a certain Hubert Cochien and Stephen Ku in the amount of Php 153,846.00 and Php 5,000,000.00 respectively. Provisional receipts were given to Cochien and Khu, however the payments were credited to Joseph Valbuena and official receipt was issued in Valbuena’s name. Petitioner was also placed on preventive suspension effective immediately for thirty (30) days without pay.
Thereafter on 9 February 2012, the company issued another Memorandum extending petitioner’s preventive suspension for another thirty (30) days from 12 February 2012.
Subsequently on 9 March 2012, petitioner received a memorandum and notice of administrative hearing requiring petitioner to submit her written explanation to the charges of loss of trust and confidence based on the following grounds: (1) violations of Securities and Regulation Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations; (2) violations of company policies and procedures; (3) violation of Company’s Code of Conduct on the treatment and use of company records; and (4) serious misconduct, commission of a crime or offense and other analogous causes under Art. 282 of the Labor Code. Petitioner was likewise notified of the administrative hearing to be held on 12 March 2012.
On 12 March 2012, the company issued a Memorandum extending petitioner’s preventive suspension for another twenty (20) days from 12 March 2012.
Petitioner submitted her explanation to the memorandum dated 13 March 2012. She denied having committed the acts being imputed to her. Petitioner explained that she would never transfer the stocks without prior instruction from the client or in this case, MG Valbuena. Since the clients have an agent, petitioner communicates with them only thru MG Valbuena since by usual business practice clients prefer to transact thru the agent and not directly to the company.
With respect to the payments credited to Joseph Valbuena, it was noted that Cochien and Kuh did not have transactions with RSEC corresponding to their check payment. Thus, petitioner informed MG Valbuena of this and the latter explained that she obtained a loan from Cochien and Kuh to settle Joseph Valbuena’s buying transactions. Petitioner might have issued the official receipts in favor of Joseph Valbuena but she claimed that these were done with the knowledge and approval of the private respondent Vice President for Operations, Mr. Salang.
Petitioner also explained that with respect to the accusation of unauthorized use of company computer to perform her duties as treasurer for her religious group, she lent her USB flash drive to the RSEC. Since files have to be saved to the flash drive, she transferred her personal files to the computer assigned to her to accommodate the company. She denied that she used the company-designated computer to create excel files for her religious group and simply forgot to erase the files after her USB was returned.
Despite petitioner’s explanation, the company issued a Notice of Decision on 2 May 2012 terminating her effective immediately.
Hence, on 4 May 2012, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for monetary benefits and damages before the National Labor Relations Commission. Thereafter the parties having failed to settle amicably, they were directed to submit their position papers.
The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On 22 December 2012, the Labor Arbiter issued a decision[2] finding petitioner illegally dismissed and ordered her reinstatement with payment of backwages in the amount of P124, 269.22 and attorney’s fees.
In finding the petitioner illegally dismissed, the Labor Arbiter stated that the imputation that petitioner effected the transfer of stocks without prior consent of Gozum and Santos was baseless. She cannot effect the transfer without a letter of instruction from the client. While petitioner prepares the “Out Receipt”, the same is only made based on the client’s letter of instruction. Moreover, the transfer undergoes a process which requires the approval of her superior. If there was any irregularity in the said transactions, petitioner should not be singularly faulted since these were coursed thru the agent, MG Valbuena.
So long as the documents are in order, petitioner merely performs what is incumbent upon her. She had nothing to do with the irregularity except to issue the receipts. Petitioner sufficiently explained that she had no knowledge of any irregularity.
With respect to the accusation that she was crediting Joseph Valbuena’s account with payments from Cochien and Kuh, petitioner explained that she issued the official receipts under the name of Joseph Valbuena only upon MG Valbuena’s instruction.Cochien never complained to the company for the same. Moreover, after the official receipts were prepared, these were signed and approved by the Operations Head.
Petitioner’s termination on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is unwarranted. Moreover, the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of petitioner’s offence. Hence, the order of reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, payment of backwages and attorney’s fees.
Dissatisfied, the company appealed before the NLRC.
Ruling of the NLRC
The NLRC rendered the assailed decision[3] on 30 April 2013 reversing the Labor Arbiter’s resolution. The dispositive portion of the which reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding merit in the instant appeal; the appealed Decision is hereby VACATED or SET ASIDE and a new one rendered finding Complainant’s dismissal from employment valid.
SO ORDERED
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by virtue of the assailed resolution[4] dated 14 June 2013.
Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the following grounds:
I
THAT THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION SECOND DIVISION, IN ARRIVING AT THE DECISION AND RESOLUTION DATED 30 APRIL 2013 AND 14 JUNE 2013, RESPECTIVELY, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF ACTS OF FRAUD PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY RULES AND REGULATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST TANTAMOUNT TO LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.
II
THAT THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, IN ARRIVING AT THE DECISION AND RESOLUTION DATED 30 APRIL 2013 AND 14 JUNE 2013, RESPECTIVELY, GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO PROPERLY APPLY THE LAW AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER.
It is well-settled in our jurisprudence[5] that:
Article 282(c) of the Labor Code prescribes two separate and distinct grounds for termination of employment, namely: (1) fraud or (2) willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.
Settled is the rule that under Article 282(c), the breach of trust must be willful. Ordinary breach will not suffice. “A breach is willful if it is done intentionally and knowingly without any justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly or inadvertently.”
“As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected.”“The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.
We have carefully reviewed the records of the instant case and found that the petitioner occupied such a position of responsibility, trust and confidence and the private respondent RSEC has sufficiently proved that she committed a breach of this trust when she allowed the perpetuation of acts considered irregular. Particularly, petitioner failed to ensure that stock transfers were effected only upon valid authorization from the client. She allowed the transfer of the stocks without letter of instruction from Guzom and Santos and relied merely on MG Valbuena’s instructions, to the prejudice not only of these clients but also of the company.
Moreover, she credited the check payments made by Cochien and Kuh to Joseph Valbuena upon MG Valbuena’s instruction because the latter told her she borrowed the money from the two clients. Petitioner did these despite the fact the payor of the checks, Cochien and Kuh, never gave any authorization or letter allowing RSEC or the petitioner to credit their payment to Valbuena. It is immaterial whether Cochien or Kuh never complained since the irregularity was already committed when the petitioner credited their payment to Valbuena.
Petitioner’s duty is not mechanical, she must also exercise sound judgment in the acceptance and processing of transactions. The transfer of stocks and preparation of “out receipts” are not automatic, she has the duty, among others, to make sure that the transactions she handled comply with the company rules as well as the applicable laws. Even more so in this case as she is not an ordinary employee but an officer who has been with the company for 17 years.
As an officer of the bank, she is duty-bound not only to protect the client but also the responsibility to promote the interest of RSEC, which has a reputation to uphold. The business of her employer which is stock trading, is so invested with public interest that it must make sure that its employees exercise due diligence and ever vigilant to protect not only the interest of company but also of the public to make sure that all its transactions are reliable, regular and compliant with the company rules and existing laws.
In allowing the questionable transactions to take place under her scrutiny and control, she fell short of her duty to exercise due diligence expected of an officer in a financial institution. For instance, despite her knowledge of the names of the client who tendered the check payments, she credited these to Joseph Valbuena’s account, petitioner relied on MG Valbuena’s word that she borrowed money from Cochien and Kuh, without any supporting documents for the same or endorsement on the checks. Likewise, her act of transferring stocks upon MG Valbuena’s instructions and without consent from the clients, caused the company to spend a considerable amount of money to replace the stocks lost by the clients.
The penalty of termination would have been considered harsh had the petitioner been an ordinary employee occupying a less sensitive position. As such, her acts could have been considered an inadvertence on her part. However, that is not the situation in the instant case. Petitioner is an officer who rose from the ranks for seventeen years and held a position so reposed with trust and confidence by the management. Thus, the company could not be faulted in imposing the penalty of termination.
It bears to emphasize that “the law, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. The management also has its own rights, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine[6]”.
Moreover, “justice is to be denied to none. The law, while protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither the oppression nor destruction of the employer. When the law angles the scale of justice in favor of labor, the scale should never be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer[7]”.
Although “it is the state’s responsibility to afford protection to labor, this policy should not be used as an instrument to oppress management and capital. In resolving disputes between labor and capital, fairness and justice should always prevail. xxx In the resolution of labor cases, we have always been guided by the State policy enshrined in the Constitution: social justice and protection of the working class. Social justice does not, however, mandate that every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor. In any case, justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine[8].”
Finally a petition for certiorari is confined to cases wherein the lower court or a quasi-judicial body acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction.[9] “An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.”The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an “evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.” Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to “truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void.” From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross[10].”
Thus, having found no grave abuse on the part of the respondent NLRC, We find no cogent reason to disturb or modify the assailed decision and resolution.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 30 April 2013 and 14 June 2013 respectively in NLRC-LAC Case No. 02-00704-10 are hereby AFFIRMED in TOTO.
SO ORDERED.
De Guia-Salvador (Chairman) and Garcia, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-518
[2] Rollo, pp. 59-67.
[3] Rollo, pp. 40-50.
[4] Rollo, pp. 53-54.
[5] Sanden Aircon Philippines vs. Rosales, GR. No. 169260, March 23, 2011citing Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Matias, 497 Phil. 476, 486 (2005), Caingat v. National Labor Relations Commission, 493 Phil. 299, 308 (2005), Santos v. San Miguel Corporation, 447 Phil. 264, 277 (2003).
[6] Solidbank Corp. vs. NLRC, GR. No. 165951, March 30, 2010
[7] St. Theresa’s School of Novaliches Foundation vs Roxas, GR. No. 122955, April 15, 1998
[8] TSPIC Corporation vs. TSPIC Employees Union, GR. No. 163419, February 13, 2008 citing Norkis Union vs. Norkis Trading G.R. No. 157098, June 30, 2005
[9] Section 1, Rule 65 of Rules of Court
[10] Eric Yu vs. Judge Reyes-Carpio, GR. No. 189207, June 15, 2011