MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, LOS BANOS BRANCH, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PROSSERPINA PRESIDENTE, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
resolution* dated November 29, 1990 of public respondent
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. RB-IV-4-2122-87
entitled “PROSSERPINA PRESIDENTE, Complainant vs. MERCURY DRUG
CORPORATION, LOS BANOS BRANCH, Respondent” affirming the decision** of the Labor Arbiter dated February 27, 1989
finding that the private respondent Prosserpina Presidente was illegally
dismissed and ordering the petitioner to reinstate her to her former position
with full backwages, salary for the period March 16 to 30, 1987; and attorney’s
fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

Private respondent Prosserpina Presidente started working with
petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation (Mercury Drug, for brevity) as Pharmacy
Assistant at its Calamba Branch on November 17, 1980. She was later assigned on May 10, 1983 to its Los Banos Branch,
then under Mr. Willie Hidalgo as Manager (TSN, p. 21; October 27, 1987).

Since Mercury Drug operated its branch in Los Banos, sales were
always below the quota. To drum up
sales and create goodwill, Mr. Hidalgo devised some schemes, one of which was
the accommodation of reasonable requests by the customers, such as reflecting
in the original receipt, purchases made by the customers in other Mercury Drug
branches without receipts but only cash register tapes, and to reflect only the
actual purchases made in the Los Banos branch in the duplicate and triplicate
copies of such receipts which are retained by the company. Of course, this is done only after
presentation of duly validated cash register tapes as proof of purchase. This was done especially for regular
customers and most often, to accommodate the need for official receipts in case
of refunds from SSS, Medicare, GSIS or private firms, provided the company does
not incur any losses. And this practice
was carried on even after Mr. Hidalgo had left the Los Banos branch (Exhibit E,
p. 89; Records; TSN, pp. 15-16, 40-41, October 27, 1987; TSN, pp. 7-11,
December 3, 1987; TSN, pp. 19-22, August 12, 1987).

Sometime in December 1986, private respondent was requested by
Mr. Genaro Revilleza, a regular customer, to issue a receipt on a previously
purchased medicine based on the cash register tape. Receipt No. 21272 was accordingly issued by private respondent
and validated by Remedios de Luna, the Cashier of Mercury Drug Los Banos (TSN,
pp. 15-16, 21-31, October 27, 1987; TSN, p. 12, August 12, 1987).

On February 24, 1987, private respondent was again requested by
Mr. Genaro Revilleza to add in Cash Invoice No. 492290 the cost of three (3)
vials of Rocephine, one (1) grain, which were purchases from another branch of
petitioner without receipt. This
request was referred by private respondent to Mrs. de Luna who agreed and
validated the duplicate and triplicate copies of said cash invoice (Annex F;
TSN, pp. 19-20, August 12, 1987).

Sometime after, the company decided to replace Mr. Hidalgo as
Manager of its Los Banos Branch, and Mr. Sammy Carpio was eventually appointed
Manager, assuming office on March 1, 1987 (Annex J, p. 8; Annex I, p. 6; TSN,
p. 24, August 12, 1987).

On March 7, 1987, Mr. Carpio called all the employees to a
meeting where he advised them to be “very vigilant for unusual events or
suspicious action of their co-employees and to report such incident to
him” (Annex F, p. 3). Two days later,
Mrs. de Luna approached Mr. Carpio and reported against private respondent,
alleging that on February 24, 1987, private respondent went to her for the
punching or machine validation of the duplicate of a cash slip evidencing
payment for items bought from said branch store; that after validating the duplicate
of a cash slip, she saw that the original slip was blank; that private
respondent proceeded to the calculator and started to compute; and that when
her curiosity was aroused, she waited for the total sum to appear on the window
box of the calculator and what appeared was more than P1,000.00 (Annex F, p.
4).

On March 23, 1987, private respondent was ordered by Mr. Carpio
to proceed posthaste to petitioner’s main office at Libis, Quezon City. Arriving at said place at around 10:15 a.m.,
she was ushered to the office of Mr. Dizon, petitioner’s Assistant
Vice-President for Operation. Inside
were Mr. Dizon, Mr. Carpio and Mr. Carlitos Villacorte, the District Manager of
S-4 covering Mercury Drug Los Banos (TSN, p. 23, 32-33, August 12, 1987; Annex
D).

In the presence of these three officers, private respondent was
asked to explain the February 24, 1987 incident. Then, one after the other, they threatened to dismiss and charge
her criminally unless she resigned (Annex D). Surprised at their demeanor, private respondent intimidated to them that
she needed time to think things over and asked to be allowed to go home for she
was already hungry. However, Mr.
Villacorte refused to let her go unless she made a resignation paper and,
thereupon, she was provided with a pen and yellow paper. Overwhelmed by the threats and pressure, she
wrote and signed a resignation as dictated by Mr. Villacorte (TSN, pp. 36-40,
June 6, 1988).

Feeling that she was made to resign against her will, private
respondent, on April 23, 1987, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the
Arbitration Branch of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) (Record, pp. 1-2). This
complaint was later amended to include a prayer for “unpaid salary from
March 16, 1987 to March 30, 1987, moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s
fees” (Ibid., p. 9).

On February 27, 1989, the Labor Arbiter rendered its decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
against respondent and in favor of complainant, ordering respondent to
reinstate complainant to her former position with full backwages, salary for
the period March 16 to 30, 1987; and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the
total award.

All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.” (p. 47, Rollo)

Not satisfied, petitioner appealed the decision to public
respondent NLRC which issued the following resolution dated November 29, 1990:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit and the decision appealed from Affirmed.

SO ORDERED.” (p. 82, Rollo)

Hence, this petition.

In its resolution dated August 5, 1991, the Second Division of
this Court gave due course to this petition (Rollo, p. 150).

Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC: (1) in asserting that there is no
company regulation against falsification of cash slips/receipts in disregard of
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the Labor Code; (2) in asserting
that there is no company regulation against falsification of cash
slips/receipts contrary to the evidence presented by petitioner and by the
admissions of private respondent herself; and (3) in finding the acts of
falsification were tolerated by the company.

Petitioner contends that private respondent’s act of adding the
purchases from other branches of petitioner to the original receipt is an act
of falsification which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code, hence, a
ground for dismissal.

In the case at bar, although private respondent admitted having
inserted additional items in the original copy (customer’s copy) of the cash
slips/receipt which were not actually bought by the customer at Mercury Drug –
Los Banos Branch where she was working, this fact alone will not constitute the
crime of falsification as defined under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.

The crime of falsification of a private document defined under
Article 172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code “is not committed by
the mere falsification of the document. It does not suffice that the document itself be false, but there must
also be proved the prejudice caused to a third person or the intention to cause
it” (Aquino, Criminal Law, Vol. II, 1987 ed., p. 264).

It must be noted that it was Mr. Willie Hidalgo, former branch
manager who introduced the scheme of reflecting in the original receipt of the
Los Banos Branch purchases made by customers in other Mercury Drug
branches. This scheme was continued
even after Mr. Hidalgo left the company. Private respondent was merely following his directive. She even thought that said scheme would work
to the advantage of petitioner as goodwill to the buying public and at the same
time helping customers collect reimbursement of medicinal expenses. On the other hand, petitioner admitted that
no losses were incurred by the company when private respondent issued the
subject receipts (Annex 7, p. 7). Hence, no proof of prejudice or intention to cause the same on the part
of private respondent was shown.

Anent the second intention that petitioner has no company
regulation against falsification, this Court finds that although the company
rules and regulations were never presented as evidence, the testimony of
private respondent herself clearly shows the existence of such company rules
and regulations, to wit:

CROSS EXAMINATION:

ATTY. VALBUENA:

(TO THE WITNESS)

Now, Mrs. Witness you are aware of
company-policies?

WITNESS:

I am very much aware of the company
policies . . . according to the manual.

xxx           xxx                 xxx

ATTY. VALBUENA:

And you will agree with me that
falsification of document fall under Type D?

WITNESS:

Type
D offense is falsification of company records. (TSN, pp. 17-18, August 12, 1987).

The above notwithstanding, the scheme introduced by no less than
the Branch Manager, admittedly did not cause any damage to third persons, much
less to the petitioner. On the
contrary, as earlier stated, it was intended to boost the sale of the petitioner
and at the same time help the customers in the reimbursement of their medicinal
expenses. By and large, the collation
of all customers’ purchases from the other branches of petitioner for
reimbursement purposes is a statement of the truth without any additional
advantage to private respondent but rather the performance of additional tasks
beyond the call of duty which ironically earned for her not a well deserved
praise but the filing of charges for dismissal.

Petitioner further contends that the said scheme was not
tolerated by the company. This Court
finds that although no evidence was presented to show that higher management
was aware of such scheme more so of having tolerated such acts, however,
evidence on record shows that indeed the said scheme was being practiced at the
Los Banos Branch from the time it was introduced by its former manager and
should have been noticed and corrected by the present manager. Failing to do so, the blame cannot now be
visited on subordinates who have no choice but to follow.

Lastly, it is a well-settled rule that findings of fact of
administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the
reviewing authorities (Planters Products, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78524 &
78739, January 20, 1989; 169 SCRA 328).

PREMISESS CONSIDERED, the decision of the NLRC is
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman),
Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Nocon, J., on leave.

* Penned by Commissioner Rogelio
I. Rayala and concurred in by Commissioners Lourdes C. Javier and Ireneo B.
Bernardo.

** Penned by Executive Labor
Arbiter Pastor I. Alvarez.