G.R. No. 189457. April 07, 2011
SUNRISE HOLIDAY CONCEPTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. TERESA A. ARUGAY, Respondent.
NACHURA, J.:
The Facts
Version of the Employee
On February 16, 2004, respondent was engaged by petitioner as
Collection Manager under a six (6)-month probationary period. She was
promised a compensation of Sixteen Thousand Pesos (P16,000.00) plus Two
Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), which shall be adjusted to Twenty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) at the end of the 6-month probationary
period. After six (6) months, respondent continued to work for
petitioner company but it made no salary adjustment.[3]
As part of her functions, respondent coordinated largely with her
four (4) collectors and with clients, numbering more than two thousand
(2,000), from whom she was collecting existing accounts for petitioner
company. In the exercise of her functions, respondent made use of the
company’s old mobile phone. Extensive coordination with company
employees and with clients compelled respondent to bring the cellular
phone out of the company premises. No one told respondent that she had
to get permission from higher management to bring out the said cellular
phone. Respondent’s job as a Collection Manager required her to be
persistent with those whom she dealt with to collect badly needed funds
for the company.[4]
In the course of her functions, respondent sent a memorandum chiding
her Assistant Collection Manager for the latter’s lack of dedication and
her act of cheating on her timecard. Unfortunately, the Assistant
Collection Manager made an issue out of this and complained to the
Executive Assistant of petitioner company. The Executive Assistant
favored the Assistant Collection Manager, who is his goddaughter, and
ignored respondent’s report.[5]
On September 20, 2004, respondent received a show-cause Memorandum
for: “(A) Act of Dishonesty—unauthorized bringing into or taking out
any article from company premises. From April 2004 to present, you have
been bringing home the Company’s mobile phone during weekends without
prior approval and consent from higher authority/ies and allegedly using
the same for your personal use; (B) Tardiness. For incurring excessive
and habitual tardiness of more than five (5) times in a month without
just and valid reasons.”[6]
Respondent was stunned by such charges because, as early as March
2004, she had already expressed the urgent need of a cellular phone in
the operation of her department. In April 2004, respondent even
submitted to petitioner a formal request or requisition for a mobile
phone for each collector, as well as a unit for herself, as Collection
Manager. The request for a cellular phone for herself was specified to
cover her personal calls, on the understanding that the Collection
Department would be able to increase its output or collections. No
objection was expressed by petitioner to such request. Respondent
rendered uncompensated overtime on weekdays, and reported for work on
Saturdays and even on holidays, believing that her dedication,
discipline, and hard work would be valued by petitioner. Respondent was
hurt when she, a manager of petitioner company, was charged for minutes
of tardiness, when she had rendered much more to the company.[7]
On September 21, 2004, respondent submitted her written explanation
intensely denying the charges imputed to her. She requested for a formal
confrontation with her accusers in order to address the issues against
her. To her surprise, the Executive Assistant of petitioner company
denied her request for a confrontation, while she was preventively
suspended to make way for an administrative investigation.[8]
On September 28, 2004, respondent received a termination letter for
alleged loss of trust and confidence, which termination was immediately
effective.[9] The pertinent portion of the termination letter reads: “[T]he
Management has found that you have patently violated our company rules
and regulations with the unlawful use of company property, poor
management style, misdemeanor and conduct unbecoming of an officer of
the company.”[10]
Thus, respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of
13th month pay, payment of damages and attorney’s fees against
petitioner before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).[11]
Version of the Employer
Respondent was hired as a probationary employee with the position of
Collection Manager on February 16, 2004. She had a basic monthly salary
of P16,000.00, with an allowance of P2,000.[12]
Prior to her engagement, respondent was duly apprised of her duties
and responsibilities, pertinent company standards, company policies,
rules, and regulations. Among such policies made known to respondent was
the prohibition on the bringing home company properties and using the
same for personal purposes. One such property was the cellular phone
issued to respondent.[13]
According to petitioner:
As Collection Manager, respondent habitually exercised discretion and
independent judgment in the supervision and control of company
resources and properties assigned to her department, subject to existing
company policies, rules, and regulations. She was charged with the
care and safekeeping of these properties.[14]
Respondent was tasked to exercise discretion and independent judgment
in areas involving the formulation of effective programs and measures
to enhance the company’s collection of its receivables and to ensure
that these receivables were all safely kept, accounted and properly
endorsed to the proper company official. The said cellular phone was
issued to respondent for her to use within the company premises and
strictly for official purposes only.[15]
However, respondent, in deliberate disregard of and disobedience to
company policy, repeatedly and habitually brought home the cellular
phone issued to her by the company. She made several personal calls on
said cellular phone during Saturdays and Sundays, which calls were paid
for by the company to the latter’s damage and prejudice. Moreover,
respondent, with abuse of her rank and influence in several instances,
borrowed money from her subordinates for personal purposes. Respondent
engaged in rumormongering involving her subordinates, sowing intrigues
and discord among her subordinates. Respondent also incurred more than
five (5) tardiness each month for several months, which were contrary to
the company policies, rules, and regulations. These prompted the
company to formally ask respondent to explain her dishonesty, serious
misconduct, and other violations in a Memorandum dated September 20,
2004.[16]
On September 21, 2004, respondent submitted her written explanation.
She failed to satisfactorily explain her unauthorized use of the
company’s cellular phone even outside the office premises, including the
charging of her personal calls. Respondent admitted her habitual
tardiness, alleging that “the hours lost due to my tardiness are over
compensated.”[17]
On September 28, 2004, petitioner formally terminated respondent’s employment.[18]
On May 28, 2005, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision[19] in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the dismissal of complainant to be illegal.
Accordingly, respondents are ordered jointly and severally:
- To reinstate complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges;
- To pay complainant full backwages from time of dismissal which up to date amounts to P225,000.00 up to actual reinstatement;
- To pay complainant moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00;
- To pay complainant exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00; and
- To pay complainant attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award.
All other claims are denied.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed in to the decision of the LA in a decision[20] dated November 17, 2006. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the NLRC denied the same in a resolution[21] dated June 18, 2007.
Undaunted, petitioner elevated the case to the CA. On June 26, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision[22] reversing the decision of the NLRC. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed issuances of the NLRC dated November 17, 2006, and June 18, 2007, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay the private respondent the amount of P30,000.00 as nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory due process.
SO ORDERED.[23]
Aggrieved, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. On April 7, 2009, the CA rendered an Amended Decision[24]
reinstating the decision and the resolution of the NLRC with
modification, the dispositive portion of the said Amended Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated June 26, 2008 of this Court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The NLRC decision dated November 17, 2006 and resolution dated June 18, 2007, affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision, are REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION
that should private respondent Teresa Arugay opt not to be reinstated,
petitioner is ordered to pay her separation pay in the amount equivalent
to one (1) month pay for every year of service, plus backwages from the
date of her termination, minus Nine (9.00) pesos representing the
amount for the three personal calls made by private respondent. The
award for moral and exemplary damages and all other money claims, are DELETED for lack of sufficient basis.SO ORDERED.[25]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, however, the CA denied the same in a Resolution dated September 2, 2009.
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
Whether respondent was illegally dismissed from employment by petitioner company.
The Ruling of the Court
In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer
to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.[26]
Petitioner dismissed respondent from employment because of alleged
loss of trust and confidence due to tardiness and for using the company
issued cellular phone outside the company premises and for her own
personal use.
Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal must
be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established
facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and
purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act
done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. Otherwise
stated, it must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s
arbitrariness, whims, caprices, or suspicion; otherwise, the employee
would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. It should be
genuine and not simulated; nor should it appear as a mere afterthought
to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith or a subterfuge for
causes that are improper, illegal, or unjustified. It has never been
intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective
nature. There must, therefore, be an actual breach of duty committed by
the employee that must be established by substantial evidence.[27]
In this case, petitioner failed to prove that respondent’s dismissal
was for a valid cause. The CA committed no reversible error in issuing
the Amended Decision upholding the illegal dismissal of respondent. The
penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the infraction committed by
the employee. Based on the findings of fact by the LA, which were
affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, respondent made only three (3) personal
calls using the company – issued cellular phone, and the total cost of
the said calls was Nine Pesos (P9.00). Respondent herself duly recorded
the said personal calls on the company logbook so that the same could be
charged to her personal account, which disproves the imputation of her
dishonesty. On the alleged tardiness committed by respondent, the same
is not grave as to merit respondent’s dismissal from service,
considering that if it was true that respondent had been habitually
tardy for several months, petitioner would not have retained her
services beyond the probationary period. The LA amply explained the
unjustifiable dismissal of respondent in this wise, viz.:
This Office does not subscribe to the idea that
complainant who is a manager should be dismissed for making three
personal mobile phone calls worth P9.00, or for being late a number of
times. Nor does this Office believe that complainant’s act of taking
outside of company premises a mobile phone in the pursuit of her office
functions is an act of dishonesty. Complainant stated that she declared
the three calls worth P9.00 in the company logbook before making the
calls so that they can be charged to her personal account; That she was
not aware of any existing company policy prohibiting the taking out of
company premises the cellular phone (Annex “10”); That she was not
furnished with a copy of the company’s written policies (Code of Good
Behavior) despite her repeated requests; That prior to accusations being
made against her, she expressed the need for, and formalized a request
for the requisition of cellular phones for each collector in the company
and one for herself for official use as well as for personal calls, and
management did not object; That she had rendered much overtime,
including work on her rest day and holidays; and that the company’s
Executive Assistant expressed his high regard of complainant’s
performance before accusations were made against her. Respondents
failed to controvert these allegations, and they are therefore deemed
admitted. The records confirm that there is no proof that a copy of
respondents’ company policies (Annex “A” of respondents’ reply) was
furnished to complainant prior to the alleged violations.Respondents stated that complainant was “a grossly dishonest
managerial employee and the epitome of what is classically called a ‘bad
example’…” If this was true, respondents could have easily dismissed
complainant during the probationary period that ended a month before
complainant was dismissed. But respondents did not.
Finally, a lesser penalty should have been imposed by petitioner
company to respondent considering that she has no history of previous
infractions. The penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the
violation committed by her. It bears stressing that while an employer
enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies,
rules, and regulations on work-related activities of the employees,
those directives, however, must always be fair and reasonable, and the
corresponding penalties, when prescribed, must always be commensurate to
the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.[28]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
The Amended Decision dated April 7, 2009 and the Resolution dated
September 2, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100227 are
hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio,Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
[1]Penned by Associate
Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Rebecca de
Guia-Salvador and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 112-117.
[2]Id. at 25-27.
[3]Id. at 204.
[4]Id. at 204-205
[5]Id. at 205.
[6]Id.
[7]Id.
[8]Id. at 98.
[9]Id. at 205.
[10]Id. at 98.
[11]Id. at 206.
The case was entitled, “Teresa Arguelles Arugay v. Sunrise Holiday Concepts, Inc., and/or Arch. Enrique O. Olanan (owner).” (Petitioner’s Position Paper before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC; id. at 52.)
[12]Id. at 99.
[13]Id. at 206.
[14]Id.
[15]Id.
[16]Id.
[17]Id. at 100;
[18]Id.
[19]Penned by Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati; id. at 176-184.
[20]Penned by Commissioner
Victoriano R. Calaycay, with Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and
Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring; id. at 96-103.
[21]Id. at 104-105.
[22] Penned by Associate
Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid
and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo; id. at 204-211.
[23]Id. at 211.
[24]Supra note 1.
[25]Id. at 116-117.
[26]Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Santos, G.R. No. 165968, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 245, 252.
[27]School of the Holy Spirit of Quezon City v. Taguiam, G.R. No. 1645565, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 224-225, 231-232.
[28]Moreno v. San Sebastian-Recoletos, Manila, G.R. No. 175283, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 416,