FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 122277.
February 24, 1998]
NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES
CORPORATION (NASUREFCO), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (Fourth Division) and SUSAN
PABIONA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This is a
petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by the National Sugar
Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO) to annul the 23 June 1995 Decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed that of the Labor
Arbiter holding that private respondent Susan Pabiona was illegally dismissed
by NASUREFCO, and the Resolution of 20 September 1995 denying its motion for reconsideration.
NASUREFCO is a
domestic corporation engaged in sugar refinery. In January 1989 it launched its Raw and Refined Sugar Exchange
Program under which clients of
NASUREFCO were no longer required
to deliver raw
sugar as a
precondition to their withdrawal of refined sugar. All they had to do was to present properly
endorsed documents chargeable against their future deliveries of raw sugar to
NASUREFCO.
In line with the
Raw and Refined Sugar Exchange Program, Pabiona was appointed as Sugar Accountant-Bookkeeper. She was tasked to maintain records of all
transactions pertaining to the Raw and Refined Sugar Exchange Program, validate
Raw Sugar Quedans submitted by Exchange participants prior to issuance
of the Refined Sugar Delivery Orders and prepare and issue Refined
Sugar Delivery Orders only after
validation procedures have been properly complied with. The procedures consisted of (a)
substantiating the Raw Sugar Quedans by checking if these were properly
signed by the authorized quedan holders; (b)
validating written reports of the authorized surveyor in accordance with
the pre-agreed scope of services, weights, manner of weighing, calibration
procedures, and the absence/presence of representatives; (c) checking the mathematical
accuracy of the quantities shown in the quedans; and, (d) computing the refined
sugar equivalent of the raw sugar exchanged based on POL analyses/refining
yield.
When the books
of NASUREFCO were audited in 1990 anomalous and irregular transactions were
uncovered in the Raw Sugar Movement Report.
Thus -
1.
On or about December 14, 1989, she prepared RSDO No. 0212 in favor of
Shantung Commercial without even seeing the corresponding RSQ’s or DO’s. This resulted in Shantung Commercial being
able to withdraw more refined sugar than was due them because the DO’s for the
raw sugar to be delivered to NASUREFCO were marked “to be served with
DETERIORATED SUGAR.” Deteriorated sugar
is of lower quality hence, with less refined sugar equivalent than the normal
raw sugar. Involved in the transaction
were 7,031.99 piculs.
2.
Sometime in October 1989, Shantung Commercial was able to withdraw
refined sugar on the strength of RSDO No. 0121 prepared by complainant. This RSDO was issued based on the RSQ of Victorias
Milling Company (VMC) for 383.05
piculs. Due to some problems with the
VMC RSQ, Shantung was required to replace them. Complainant made it appear that the RSQ was already replaced when
in fact it was not. NASUREFCO was not
able to get the raw sugar. The VMC RSQ
which complainant should have kept until replaced was later sold by Ms. C.
Alfonso, a co-employee of complainant.
3.
In her report on Raw Sugar Endorsements and withdrawals as of February
11, 1990, complainant made it appear that Dacongcogon Producers endorsed 18,000
piculs of raw sugar under DO No. 035 on December 28, 1989. DO No. 035 was never endorsed on that date
as it was received by NASUREFCO only on January 1990. Complainant intentionally and deliberately included the supposed
endorsement in the 1989 transactions to make it appear that Dacongcogon
Producers endorsed more than 200,000 piculs of raw sugar for the period, hence,
entitled to claim a volume incentive of PHP 1.00 per picul. Complainant also included the endorsements
made by other parties under Dacongcogon Producers to qualify it for the
incentive.
NASUREFCO found
Pabiona’s written explanation flawed, unsatisfactory. Hence, on 31 May 1990 NASUREFCO through its Human Resource
Division Officer-in-Charge charged Pabiona with several violations of
accounting policies. Pabiona was again
given the chance to air her side, which she did through a memorandum. On 2 and 3 July 1990 a formal investigation
was conducted. Pabiona was advised to
retain a counsel of her choice to assist her in presenting her case. After the formal investigation, NASUREFCO
terminated the services of Pabiona for willful violation of company policies,
gross and habitual neglect of duties, and willful breach of trust.
Thus Pabiona
filed her complaint with the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. On the other hand, NASUREFCO maintained that
the dismissal was for a just cause after proper procedures were observed,
hence, legal and valid.
On 26 November
1993 Labor Arbiter Dennis D. Juanon sustained Pabiona and ruled that her
dismissal was illegal because -
To our considered opinion, she
merely record (and) reports whatever transactions ought to be recorded by her
as such personnel. Whatever defects in
number or quality of the goods transacted by the corporation is no longer
within the ambit of her functions.
She, however, as projected in the
testimony of respondent’s personnel, was exercising functions which to our
mind, appears to be more than x x x (the) ordinary functions of an
accountant-bookkeeper. For this, we
believe that whatever mistakes made in the process of performance of her work
as designated, are more than her ordinary functions, (hence) she cannot be
ordinarily blamed.
x x x x
In resume, it is our considered
opinion that while complainant may have committed some neglect of duty however,
the same was not within her ordinary functions as per job description x x x
x Evidences (sic) adduced by
either party show that if at all there was negligence that may have been
committed in the performance of her work, absent was the character of
regularity in committing negligence.
x x x x
Complainant herself to reiterate,
admits that she may be negligent yet it was not gross and habitual; that her
acts in violating company policies as basis for her dismissal may be viewed by
respondent as breach of trust, yet the same is not willful.[1]
On appeal
NASUREFCO insisted that the Labor Arbiter committed serious errors in his
findings of fact and appreciation of evidence and that his conclusion was contrary to law,
jurisprudence and the evidence on record.
But the NLRC
upheld the Labor Arbiter and ruled that
under the Raw and Refined Sugar Exchange Program a client of NASUREFCO was allowed to
withdraw refined sugar even if it had not yet delivered the corresponding raw
sugar provided a properly endorsed Raw Sugar Quedan or Delivery Order
was presented. After examination and validation of
the sugar quedan,
a corresponding Refined
Sugar Delivery Order was issued to the client allowing withdrawal
of refined sugar
from NASUREFCO’s warehouse. The Refined Sugar Delivery Order was the sole document that enabled a client
to withdraw refined sugar. The
examination and validation of all these procedures rested with Pabiona. The NLRC thus affirmed the Labor Arbiter -
After examining both complainant’s
and respondent’s evidence, We find that the infractions imputed to the
complainant are not gross and habitual, but rather her inability to exercise
due diligence in the performance of her duties or her failure to follow-up
transactions and make the necessary correction on the records or report she
prepares. The infractions are not
deliberate and intentional on the part of the complainant with full intent to cause
great damage and prejudice to the respondent.
In fact, the latter failed to prove that irreparable damage was incurred
due to the negligent acts of the complainant.
Neither did we find intent for personal gain when complainant committed
these acts. Respondent did not submit
any evidence that complainant benefited from these infractions. On the other hand, we find that complainant
acted in good faith when she performed her duties which led to these omissions
attributed to her. In fine, we could
conclude that complainant was negligent, but not gross and habitual in her
record keeping, but this does not constitute a sufficient ground to cause her
termination.
With the denial
of its motion for reconsideration, NASUREFCO is now before us imputing grave
abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC.
Pabiona's
duties, according to her Job Value Contribution Statement, consist of -
1.
Maintaining records of all transactions pertaining to the Raw and
Refined Sugar Exchange Program.
2. Validating Raw Sugar Quedans submitted
by Exchange Program participants prior to issuance of Refined Sugar Delivery
Order. Validation procedures are as
follows:
a.
Substantiate the Raw Sugar Quedans by checking if quedans are properly
signed by authorized quedan holders;
b.
Validate written reports of the authorized surveyor on polarization
analyses, compliance of surveyor in accordance with pre-agreed scope of
services, weights, manner of weighing, calibration procedures, the
absence/presence of representatives;
c.
Check mathematical accuracy of the quantities shown in the quedans; and
d.
Compute the refined sugar equivalent of the raw sugar exchanged based on
POL analysis/Refining yield.
3.
Preparing Refined Sugar Delivery Orders (RSDO) after validating
procedures.
The Labor
Arbiter found that although Pabiona was guilty of neglect of duty, the duties
which she performed and of which she was being charged of neglect, were not
within her ordinary functions as Sugar Accountant-Bookkeeper. The Labor Arbiter ratiocinated that as
Pabiona merely recorded transactions that ought to be recorded, whatever
defects in the quantity or quality items transacted were no longer her
responsibility.
For its part,
NLRC found that Pabiona’s infractions were not gross nor habitual but that she
merely failed to exercise due diligence in performing her duties, forgot to
follow up transactions and make necessary corrections on the records and
reports she prepared. Neither were the
infractions deliberate nor intentional as NASUREFCO failed to prove intent on
the part of Pabiona to personally gain from the transactions; in other words,
her infractions were in good faith.
The preparation
and validation of documents for purposes of withdrawing refined sugar from
NASUREFCO's warehouse involve trust and confidence. It is only through the issuance by Pabiona of a Refined Sugar
Delivery Order that the planters
could avail of the refined sugar of NASUREFCO.
The rule is
settled that if the employee is guilty of breach of trust or that his employer
has justifiable reason
to distrust him,
the labor tribunal cannot justly
deny the freedom and authority to dismiss his employee.[2]
The basic
premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is that the employee
concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. It is the breach of this trust that results in the employer’s
loss of confidence in the employee.
Under Art. 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, loss of confidence would
be the result of “fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed
in him by his employer or duly authorized representative,” a just cause for
termination. It cannot be gainsaid that
the breach of trust must be related to the performance of the employee's
functions.[3]
Contrary to the
findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the infractions committed by
Pabiona were directly within the purview of her job description. It was only through her active participation
and involvement in the illicit infringement of the company’s accounting
procedures that some clients of NASUREFCO were able to withdraw refined sugar
in larger quantities to the prejudice of the latter.
Neglect of duty,
to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual.[4] In the instant case, Pabiona’s
neglect of duty was gross. As her position
related to money matters, she was expected and required to
be extra vigilant
in the performance of her
job as it involved the financial interest of the company. She was also habitually remiss in her
duties. She issued a Refined Sugar
Delivery Order to Shantung Commercial without first examining the
corresponding Raw Sugar Quedan and Delivery Order. Consequently, Shantung Commercial was
able to withdraw a larger quantity of refined sugar than what was allowable to
it. In another instance, Pabiona again
issued a Refined Sugar Delivery Order
to Shantung Commercial without the corresponding Raw Sugar Quedan. Thus, NASUREFCO was not able to collect raw
sugar from Shantung Commercial equivalent to the refined sugar it had
withdrawn. Thirdly, Pabiona made it
appear that in 1989 Dacongcogon Producers endorsed more than 200,000 piculs of
raw sugar to NASUREFCO thereby allowing it to qualify in the Volume
Incentive Program under which
NASUREFCO would pay P1.00 per picul of raw sugar to every planter that
endorsed 200,000 piculs or more of raw sugar to NASUREFCO. The fact that NASUREFCO did not suffer
losses from the anomalies committed by Pabiona because of timely discovery does
not excuse the latter as she was very much aware that her acts would be greatly
prejudicial to NASUREFCO.
In fine, we hold
that the dismissal of Pabiona as Sugar Accountant-Bookkepper was for a just and
valid cause and that NASUREFCO faithfully observed procedural due process in
effecting her dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
GRANTED. The decision of public
respondent National Labor Relations Commission of 23 June 1995 affirming the
decision of the Labor Arbiter of 26 November 1993 which found the dismissal of respondent Susan
Pabiona to be illegal,
and the Resolution of 20 September 1995 denying NASUREFCO’s motion for
reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
consequently, the complaint of
respondent Susan Pabiona filed with the Labor Arbiter is DISMISSED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
(Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.