ESTRELLITA G. SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC., and /or LEONORA FONTANILLA, Respondents. G.R. NO. 154628, December 6, 2006, THIRD DIVISION, VELASCO, JR., J.:

ESTRELLITA G. SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC., and /or LEONORA FONTANILLA, Respondents. G.R. NO. 154628, December 6, 2006, THIRD DIVISION, VELASCO, JR., J.: 

 

The requirements of due process have been met. Petitioner admitted that on December 10, 1998 she received from the union president a copy of the December 9, 1998 memorandum charging her with falsification under Category V of the company's handbook. The second requisite that a hearing or conference is set to enable the employee to respond to the charge and adduce evidence is     deemed substantially complied with.  Petitioner received a copy of the March 8, 1999 termination letter by registered mail which she received on March 23, 1999, or at the latest, on September 1, 1999 when she got a copy of respondent's Position Paper. 

 

FACTS: 

 

Petitioner Estrellita Salazar became Sales Representative of respondent company, Philippine Duplicators, Inc. She was assigned at the Southern Section of Metro Manila under the direct supervision of respondent Leonora Fontanilla.  

 

Respondent respondent Fontanilla went over the three (3) accounts of Salazar, namely, ICLARM, Bengson Law Office, and D.M. Consunji, Inc. The individual ledgers specified that Salazar visited the said customers; that she talked with the contact persons identified in the ledgers; and that she reported that these customers would not, in the meantime, purchase the equipment because of budgetary constraints. 

 

Fontanilla asked Salazar whether she went to the aforementioned clients on November 20, 1998. The latter answered in the affirmative as reflected in her Daily Sales Report given to Fontanilla. However, respondent Fontanilla told Salazar that upon verification, the said clients alleged that they neither knew nor met the latter; but Salazar stood firm on her declaration that she met all three customers. 

 

Petitioner claimed that on December 7, 1998, respondent Fontanilla called her to the latter's office and handed her a memorandum requesting her to receive it. Petitioner refused to receive it because it stated her termination from employment and asked Fontanilla why she should be terminated as she had done nothing wrong. 

 

On December 9, 1998, respondent Fontanilla directed Salazar, through a memorandum to explain, within 72 hours from receipt of said document, why no disciplinary action should be taken against her in violation of Section 8, Category V of the company's Handbook on Constructive Discipline for "falsifying company records", but petitioner refused to receive the memorandum. Hence, on December 10, 1998, it was sent through registered mail to Salazar's residence. 

 

Salazar claimed that on December 10, 1998, the union president also gave her a copy of the December 9, 1998 memorandum charging her of falsification; and that the memorandum was just a plan to comply with the procedural due process leading to her termination which had already materialized when the first memorandum of termination was allegedly shown to her on December 7, 1998. Consequently, she did not report to work anymore and readily filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondents on December 15, 1998. On December 16, 1998, through registered mail, Salazar eventually received a copy of the December 9, 1998 memorandum about the charge of falsification. 

 

Meanwhile, respondent company sought the dismissal of Salazar's complaint of illegal dismissal, claiming it was Salazar who abandoned work.  

 

Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of interest to prosecute. Salazar refiled the labor case which was re-raffled to Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday, who found that petitioner's dismissal was for a just cause, but respondent Duplicators breached the twin-notice requirement for dismissal under Section 2 (c), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. Thus, Duplicators was ordered to pay an indemnity of PhP 10,000.00 to petitioner Salazar. 

 

Salazar filed a Memorandum of Appeal from the adverse Decision. The NLRC decided the appeal finding that there was actually no termination of Salazar's employment but considering that reinstatement was not advisable due to the strained relationship between the parties, separation pay was ordered paid in lieu of reinstatement.  

 

Salazar's Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied for lack of merit. 

 

Salazar filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. The CA ruled that the termination of Salazar's employment was legal and valid. While the dismissed employee was not entitled to separation pay, the CA nonetheless awarded severance pay pursuant to settled jurisprudence and in the interest of social justice. Lastly, it ruled that there was no breach of the due process requirements prescribed for dismissal from employment. 

 

Salazar filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA consequently denied such. 

 

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court.

Issue(s): 

 

1. Whether or not the termination of Salazar’s employment was legal and valid 

 

2. Whether or not Salazar was accorded due process 

Ruling: 

 

Yes. Petitioner was dismissed for a just and valid cause 

 

Petitioner was charged with "falsifying company records." On this issue, Labor Arbiter Caday made finding that on November 20, 1998, at around 3:00 PM complainant Salazar visited Juliet Alvarez of Banco-Filipino-Legal, Paseo de Roxas, Legaspi Village, Makati City. This belies complainant's claim that she visited the respondent's customer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. on November 20, 1998 at around 3:00P.M. Similarly, the certification issued by Mr. Frederick Sison of the D.M. Consunji, Inc. attesting to complainant's visit on November 20, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. is belied by the fact that on November 20, 1998, complainant visited Fely/Federico and Lilian at the Makati Medical Center as appearing in customer ledger of Makati Medical Center.  The findings of both Arbiter Caday and the NLRC were sustained by the CA, which ruled that "there is ample proof to bear out that the petitioner knowingly recorded erroneous entries in her Daily Sales Reports." 

 

It is well-settled that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded not only respect but even finality if the findings are supported by substantial evidence; more so when such findings were affirmed by the CA and such findings are binding and conclusive upon this Court. Thus, we rule that petitioner committed fraud or willful breach of the employer's trust reposed in her under Article 282 of the Labor Code. 

2. Petitioner was afforded due process. 

 

The procedure for terminating an employee is found in Book VI, Rule I, Section 2 (d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code: 

 

Standards of due process: requirements of notice. - 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 Code: (a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; (b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; (c) 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.  

 

In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee's last known address. The aforelisted requirements have been met. Petitioner admitted that on December 10, 1998 she received from the union president a copy of the December 9, 1998 memorandum charging her with falsification under Category V of the company's handbook. 

 

The second requisite that a hearing or conference is set to enable the employee to respond to the charge and adduce evidence is deemed substantially complied with.  

 

Petitioner received a copy of the March 8, 1999 termination letter by registered mail which she received on March 23, 1999, or at the latest, on September 1, 1999 when she got a copy of respondent's Position Paper. 

 

Thus the twin notice requirement that constitutes due process has been satisfied. 

Source: Labor Law – Labor Standards  Case Digest. DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW.