PHILIPPINE PIZZA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND MA. AURORA ESPIRITU, RESPONDENTS.
PERALTA, JR., E. B., J.:
Based on acknowledged facts, private respondent Ma. Aurora A. Espiritu (Espiritu) was hired by petitioner on July 8, 1996 and was stationed as Manager of petitioner’s Commissary Department-Supply Chain Management Division, with a monthly salary of P47,357.00, inclusive of allowances.
Between August to September, 2008, the Human Resource Division of petitioner received several letter-complaints from petitioner’s suppliers about Espiritu’s behavior. These reports alluded to Espiritu’s behavior in using her position as Commissary Head to obtain commissions and enter into business agreements with petitioner’s suppliers for her own benefit.
On October 13, 2008, a Memorandum[4] was brought to the attention of Espiritu and she was informed of the charges against her for “serious misconduct”, “fraud or willful breach of trust” and for “conflict of interest”. Concomitant with the notice was the 30 day preventive suspension with a directive to explain her side and to attend the administrative inquiry on October 22, 2008 at 2:00 in the afternoon.
Espiritu’s letter-reply[5] refuted all the charges against her and she requested for copies of documents and other evidence.
The Human Resource Department furnished Espiritu with the requested copies of but she remained under preventive suspension.[6]
During the scheduled administrative inquiry, Espiritu requested for an extension to file her Answer and to reset the administrative inquiry, but such request was denied and the inquiry proceeded.
Later, Espiritu filed her Answer and on November 14, 2008, another formal investigation was conducted and Espiritu was assisted by her counsel. On even date, when Espiritu requested the investigating committee if she could present her witness on December 5, 2008, the investigating committee suggested that Espiritu’s witness could just submit a sworn statement and the committee shall deliberate if there is a necessity to convene for another meeting.
In the meantime, Espiritu was reinstated in the payroll on November 13, 2008 after she served her preventive suspension but she was not permitted to assume her official functions after the 30 day suspension.
On February 26, 2009, to Espiritu’s surprise, her salary was withheld and per information she gathered, she learned that she was terminated from work.
Hence, Espiritu promptly filed a Complaint[7] against petitioner for illegal termination of her employment which was disputed by petitioner.
Petitioner reiterated that based on the Complaint[8] instituted by Helen San Juan of Trevi’s International Corporation (Trevi’s), it conducted an investigation which only confirmed that Espiritu transacted with petitioner’s suppliers like Trevi’s and Tactical Solution.
Pursuant to the findings of the investigating committee, Espiritu’s termination was recommended due to conflict of interest, serious misconduct and willful breach of trust and confidence under Article 282 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code.[9] Relative to the aspect of termination, petitioner averred that it issued the Notice of Termination[10] which was sent via a registered mail.[11]
On November 11, 2009, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Espiritu’s Complaint but awarded P50,000.00 as nominal damages for violation of Espiritu’s right to statutory due process.[12] Thereafter, the NLRC agreed with the Labor Arbiter.
Basically, the controversy in this case was the legality of Espiritu’s termination from employment.
It is fundamental axiom in labor law that a valid termination of employment presupposes the existence of a just or authorized cause after due notice and hearing.[13]
Undoubtedly, Espiritu was dismissed for serious misconduct, inclusive of loss of confidence and trust. Under Article 282[14] of the Labor Code, serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence are just causes for dismissal of an employee.
Misconduct is defined as improper and wrongful conduct. It is 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. Of course, ordinary misconduct would not justify the termination of the services of an employee. The law is explicit that the misconduct should be serious. It is settled that in order for misconduct to be serious, it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. As amplified by jurisprudence, the misconduct must (1) be serious; (2) relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (3) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[15]
On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence. The employee must be invested with confidence on delicate matters, such as custody, handling, care and protection of the employer’s property and funds.[16]
Moreover, as a valid basis for termination, the employer must consider these parameters: (1) loss of confidence should not be simulated; (2) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; (3) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and (4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.[17]
Furthermore, an employer has a prerogative and wider latitude of discretion in dismissing a managerial employee or personnel. The employer is not required to present proof beyond reasonable doubt. Mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust and confidence of the employer would suffice for employee’s termination.[18]
A review of the facts revealed that Espiritu was employed as Manager and headed the Commissary Department-Supply Chain Management Division of petitioner. She was tasked to supervise the purchase of petitioner’s supplies for petitioner’s operation. In essence, Espiritu was assigned to transact with prospective suppliers of petitioner and made recommendations for the approval/purchase of the products offered by prospective suppliers.
Clearly, Espiritu was holding a managerial position since she possessed the authority to act in the interest of her employer and such authority was not merely routinary or clerical but required the use of independent judgment.[19] Necessarily, trust and confidence was reposed upon Espiritu by petitioner.
We, too, are in accord with the conclusion reached by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in regard to petitioner’s commission of serious misconduct and breach of trust and confidence from petitioner.
With reference to substantial evidence against Espiritu’s dismissal from employment, it was premised on the complaint letter of Ms. Helen San Juan of Trevi’s;[20] Dealer Agreement between Trevi’s and Espiritu’s husband Leodi Mar Espiritu and delivery receipts;[21] personal checks issued by Espirtu in favor of Trevi’s;[22] letter of Rudy Lim of Trevi’s confirming the Dealer Agreement of Espiritu with Trevi’s;[23] letter of Helen Reyes of Trevi’s canceling the Dealer Agreement;[24] an incident report pertaining to the purchase of Espiritu of 175 kgs. or 6 bags of onions from Mark Kim Tiu of Tactical Solutions;[25] notarized joint affidavit of Helen San Juan and Mauro Rabuco of Trevi’s;[26] and notarized joint affidavit of Mark Kim Tiu and Rondee Tan;[27] and the result[28] of the investigation which disclosed that Espiritu used her position as head of the commissary and transacted with petitioner’s supplier’s and prospective suppliers for her personal gain and her non-observance of the procedure in procuring supplies for petitioner.
Certainly, as manager of the commissary department of petitioner, Espiritu was entrusted to protect the interest of the company. She has the full control of all the activities that take place in the commissary such as the selection of the supplier, the examination of the products of the supplier and recommendation if the supplier will pass the standard of the company. However, Espiritu took advantage of her position and made it appear to the suppliers that she could influence the company for approving the proposals of the suppliers and worse, she used her position as Manager in order to obtain transactions with the petitioner’s suppliers for her own gain.
As aptly observed by the Labor Arbiter:
“A close look at the letter complaints of Plantex, Trevi’s, Mark Kim Tiu of Tactical Solutions shows that complainant would not have been able to transact any business like purchase, test or pay Plantex using her personal checks, entering into Dealer Agreement with them had she not occupied a Commissary Manager position for respondent company. We find that her actions are related to the performance of her assigned official duties and tasks.”[29]
We now shift gear, so to speak, to the next query of due process for Espiritu.
There is no legal squabble to the proposition that petitioner has the obligation to send Espiritu two written notices prior to his dismissal.
Verily, Section 2 (d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code, in relation to Article 282 of the Labor Code, provides the due process requirements prior to termination of employment, namely: (1) a written notice specifying the ground or grounds for termination; (2) a hearing or conference to give the employee concerned the opportunity to respond to the charge; and (3) a written notice of termination.[30]
However, Espiritu was only extended a single notice through a Memorandum dated October 13, 2008 which informed her of the charges and was requested to attend an administrative inquiry. As to the notice of termination, there was no concrete indication that Espiritu was duly notified. What was presented by petitioner was a mere registry receipt that a notice of termination was sent to Espiritu via a registered mail sans any return card.[31]
Consequently, for breach of Espiritu’s right to statutory due process, payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages in an amount addressed to the Court was appropriate. We believe that P50,000.00 as nominal damages was sufficient vindication of Espiritu’s right to due process.[32]
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED, and the assailed dispositions of the NLRC are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr., J. C., Chairperson, and Acosta, F. P., JJ., concur.
* Per Office Order No. 15-15-ABR dated January 20, 2015, effective February 2, 2015.
[1] Dated January 31, 2011, Rollo, pp. 3-356 with annexes.
[2] Rollo, pp. 32-38.
[3] Rollo, pp. 29-31.
[4] Rollo, pp. 58-59.
[5] Rollo, page 60.
[6] Rollo, page 61.
[7] Rollo, pp. 43-45, see Amended Complaint.
[8] Rollo, pp. 112-113.
[9] Rollo, pp. 153-161.
[10] Rollo, page 152.
[11] Rollo, page 162.
[12] Rollo, pp. 189-200.
[13] Kakampi and Its Members, Victor Panuelos, et al., represented by David Dayalo, Kakampi Vice President and Attorney-In-Fact vs. Kingspoint Express and Logistic and/or Mary Ann Co., G.R. No. 194812, April 25, 2012.
[14] ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) 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 representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
[15] Colegio De San Juan De Letran-Calamba v. Engr. Deborah P. Tardeo, G.R. No. 190303, July 9, 2014.
[16] Bluer than Blue Joint Ventures Company/Mary Ann Dela Vega v. Glyza Esteban, G.R. No. 192582, April 7, 2014.
[17] Baguio Central University v. Ignacio Gallente, G.R. No. 188267, December 2, 2013.
[18] Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc., v. Ma. Flora M. Episcope, G.R. No. 192826, February 27, 2013, citing Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils), Inc, v. Baban, G.R. No. 167449, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 198, 208-209.
[19] Rowena De leon Cruz v. Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173357, February 13, 2013.
[20] Rollo, pp. 112-113.
[21] Rollo, pp. 63, 67-73.
[22] Rollo, page 123.
[23] Rollo, page 62.
[24] Rollo, page 126.
[25] Rollo, page 128.
[26] Rollo, pp. 143-145.
[27] Rollo, pp. 146-147.
[28] Rollo, pp. 153-161.
[29] Labor Arbiter’s Decision page 9, see Rollo, page 197.
[30] Section 2 (d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code, in part, provides:
Section 2. Security of tenure. – xxx
xxxx
(d) In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:
For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Labor Code:
(i.) 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.
(ii.) 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.
(iii.) 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.
[31] The Government of the Philippines v. Aballe, G.R. No. 147212, march 24, 2006; see also Republic of the Philippines v. Resins Inc., G.R. No. 175891, January 12, 2010.
[32] Samar-Med Distribution v. National Labor Relations Commission, and Josafat Gutang, G.R. No. 162385, July 15, 2013.