UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DOMINADOR C. CABRALES, JR., RESPONDENTS.
INTING, J.:
of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint of illegal dismissal with
money claims against URC, the dispositive portion of the resolution
states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered as follows:
1. Declaring the dismissal of the complainant illegal;
2. Ordering respondent UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, through its
authorized officers to pay complainant separation pay equivalent to his
one (1) month salary for every year of service and up to the time his
separation pay shall have been fully paid; and3. Ordering respondent UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION through its
authorized officers to pay the complainant backwages computed from the
date of his dismissal up to the finality of this resolution.SO ORDERED.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Dominador C. Cabrales Jr. (Dominador) was employed as Unit Sales Manager of URC.[4]
In October 2006, his immediate supervisor, Roger P. Galon, found
shortages in the liquidation of Dominador’s Transportation and Lodging
Fund (TLF) for the months of April, May and June amounting to
P76,512.50.[5] Consequently, URC issued a letter to Dominador asking him to explain the discrepancy.[6] In his letter to URC, Dominador admitted that he failed to liquidate the amount.[7]
He further explained that he suffered some financial difficulties
during that time and promised that he will try his best to settle the
amount on or before December 2006.[8] To further afford Dominador to explain his side, an administrative investigation was conducted by URC.[9]
Dominador participated in the investigation and admitted that he used
his TLF for some personal use brought about by his tight financial
situation.[10] As a result of
the investigation, URC sent a letter of termination to Dominador for
misappropriating company funds and for breach of trust and confidence
pursuant to their Code of Discipline.[11]
Two months after the effectivity of his termination, Dominador instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal against URC.[12]
The Labor Arbiter ruled against Dominador and found his dismissal in
order after finding that Dominador misappropriated company funds and
that he lost the trust and confidence reposed in him as a managerial
employee.[13] The NLRC
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter reasoning that: (1) Dominador
did not misappropriate his TLF but only failed to liquidate it; (2) the
TLF is a cash advance and therefore its ownership has transferred to
Dominador but only subject to liquidation; (3) there appears to be no
serious violation of company rules and regulations since Dominador was
allowed to continue to work; and (4) it was not shown that Dominador was
remiss of his job.[14]
Aggrieved, URC filed the instant petition and raised following errors:
I.
THE NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT THE PETITIONER
DID NOT FILE ITS COMMENT ON PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S APPEAL MEMORANDUM;II.
THE NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT THE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS MERELY HIS FAILURE TO PROPERLY LIQUIDATE HIS
TRANSPORT AND LODGING FUNDS (TLF) AND NOT ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PAR.
1-B OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
Our Ruling
Essentially, the issue before this Court is whether or not Dominador was legally dismissed.
The petition is meritorious.
Dominador was employed as a Unit Sales Manager.[15] He admitted that he failed to liquidate P76,512.50 of his TLF.[16] He also admitted that he used his TLF other than its intended purpose which is for his transportation and lodging expenses.[17]
“Salesmen
are highly individualistic personnel who have to be trusted and left
essentially on their own. A high degree of confidence is reposed in them
when they are entrusted with funds or properties of their employer.[18]”
Clearly, this trust was breached by Dominador. While this Court
sympathizes with the financial constraints suffered by Dominador, the
fact remains that he used the TLF for his own use. The use of the fund
other than its intended purpose constitutes misappropriation.[19]
It was therefore an error of the public respondent to consider
that Dominador only failed to liquidate his TLF. He misappropriated his
TLF which then led to his failure to liquidate it. A necessary
consequence of these acts would be losing the trust and confidence of
his employer especially since he holds a position of trust and
confidence as a Unit Sales Manager.
“Law and jurisprudence
have long recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by
reason of loss of trust and confidence. As provided for in Article 282,
an employer may terminate an employee’s employment for fraud or willful
breach of trust reposed in him.[20]”
Dominador, as salesman, holds a position of trust and confidence. He
admitted that he used his TLF for another purpose. He admitted that he
failed to liquidate it. Consequently, URC legally dismissed him. It
should be stressed that “Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower
court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing
jurisprudence.[21]”
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Camello (Chairperson) and Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-29
[2] Rollo, pp. 39-42
[3] Rollo, p. 48-53
[4] Rollo, p. 39
[5] Rollo, p. 49
[6] Rollo, pp. 49 and 105
[7] Rollo, p. 106
[8] Rollo, p. 106
[9] Rollo, p. 108
[10] Rollo, pp. 9, 49 and 109-111
[11] Rollo, p. 112
[12] Rollo, pp. 52 and 37
[13] Rollo, pp. 48-53
[14] Rollo, pp. 39-42
[15] Rollo, p. 39
[16] Rollo, p. 106
[17] Rollo, pp. 106 and 110
[18] Sanchez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124348, August 19, 1999
[19] Murao v. People, G.R. No. 141485, June 30, 2005 citing Saddul v. Court of Appeals
[20] Jerusalem v. Keppel Monte Bank et al., G.R. No. 169564, April 6, 2011
[21] Fernandez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 171821, October 9, 2006