FIRST DIVISION
LBC DOMESTIC FRANCHISE CO., G.R. No. 162577
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA,
and
GARCIA,
JJ.
RUSSEL E. FLORIDO,
Respondent. Promulgated:
August
17, 2007
X
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
This
is a petition for review[1]
seeking the nullification of the Decision and Resolution rendered by the Court
of Appeals (CA) on
The
facts are as follows:[2]
Respondent
Russel E. Florido was employed by petitioner LBC Domestic Franchise Company on P25,000.
In
November of 1999, a committee was formed for the purpose of preparing
petitioner’s Christmas giveaways to its employees. Before Yvonnie Platon,
President of petitioner company, left for the P300. Respondent volunteered to find a supplier of
the hams, thus saying: “Ako ay may
kilala, ako na lang.”[3] Platon
agreed and entrusted the task to respondent. She likewise designated respondent
as the company’s Officer-in-Charge.
Platon
returned to the
Meanwhile,
the company employees were grouped by teams, and each team was allotted
representation expense. From their petty cash, Arnel Fajardo and the QCT
Katipunan Team advanced the respective amounts of P3,960 and P4,752.
The corresponding receipts supporting the claim for the reimbursement of the
cash advances made by the latter indicated: “FLORIDO TRADING, meat dealer.”
On
On
It
was brought to my attention by our Chief Accountant that the official receipts
you used in liquidating the amount of P92,700 and P6,000
representing the purchase of 320 pieces of Purefoods Fiesta Ham as Christmas
giveaways to our employees were that of TOBS Meat Supply.
It was further noted that the
handwritings in the said receipts were yours and you yourself signed the said
official receipts as the authorized personnel to issue the same.
We would like to be clarified why
instead of Purefoods receipts, the above-mentioned receipts were the ones used
in liquidating the said expenses and why is it that you were the one who issued
and signed the same…
In addition to the foregoing, the
Chief Accountant likewise brought to my attention the two other receipts
allegedly issued by a FLORIDO TRADING in the amount of P3,960 and P4,752.
The receipt for P3,960 was
used by Mr. Arnel Fajardo in liquidating the purchase of ten (10) bottles of
Fundador Brandy while the other receipt for P4,752 was used by QCT
Katipunan in liquidating their purchase of twelve (12) bottles of the same kind
of liquor as giveaways. Since the two receipts were without Tax Identification
Numbers, hence, not registered with the BIR, Mr. Fajardo and Katipunan Team
were asked on the receipts source and were informed that it was you who issued
the same.
We would like to be clarified why
you issued the said receipt and why it was not registered with the BIR…
Kindly submit your reply within
forty eight (48) hours from receipt of this memo.
On
March 8, 2000, respondent replied, as follows:
1. I proposed the supply of the product
under my name. The company, after careful evaluation of the proposal, approved
it exclusively because the price is low compared to prevailing market price.
The approval does not carry any requirement as to receipt to be used or company
who should supply both product and receipt.
2. Pursuant to the approved offer, I
delivered the Purefoods Fiesta hams products and the company received the
products without any complaint whatsoever, a clear admission of strict
compliance of both offer and acceptance.
3. I got fully paid for the delivered
products by Ms. Pearlie Tobias, LBC-DFC Finance Officer, who had cash advanced
the payment for these hams.
4. The receipt was in the name of Tobs
Meat Supply because I was authorized by the same to act for and in his behalf.
5. Relative to the Fundador issue, I have
not offered [and] neither the company ordered from me the Fundador brandies. I
supplied these liquors through individual orders by the representatives of the
concerned teams which by itself is strictly personal and private among
employees and myself.
6. I have no contract with LBC-FDC for
this purpose. Payments for these liquors represent cash advances by these
employees.
7. These orders were ordered by them
because my price was way below the prevailing market price of the liquor. The
personnel who ordered the Fundador brandies knew fully well beforehand that I
cannot issue receipts because I ordered these Fundador brandies in [the] black
market which is the reason why the price was very low.
8. Hence, I issued Florido Trading
receipts for this purpose.
With this explanation, I hope that the company will be clarified and extend to me the rights rightfully belonging to me under the law by lifting the suspension and allowing me to resume my employment immediately with backwages.
Respondent
reported to work on March 10, 2000 but he was prohibited from entering the
General Aviation Compound of the
On
March 15, 2000, a meeting with respondent in the nature of a formal
investigation of the matter was arranged by Platon at Seaside Restaurant.
Platon allegedly informed respondent that he could bring a legal counsel to the
meeting but respondent came to the meeting by himself. At the meeting,
respondent reminded Platon that he had informed her of his offer to look for a
supplier of ham, and that his proposal/quotation was approved by the
management, the same having been e-mailed earlier to Ms. Liza Berenguer,
Vice-President for Finance. Respondent added that it was not uncommon for the
employees of petitioner to undertake similar transactions with the latter.
On
March 16, 2000, respondent was dismissed by petitioner for breach of trust and
confidence. Consequently, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in
On
February 19, 2002, declaring that petitioner overreacted to the report made by
its Chief Accountant regarding the receipts submitted by respondent for
liquidation purposes, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding petitioner
guilty of illegal dismissal:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, declaring the dismissal of
the complainant as illegal and ordering the respondent as follows:
1.
To reinstate complainant to his former position or
substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights, benefits
and other privileges;
2.
To pay complainant the sum of Six Hundred Fifty Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Four and
19/100 (P657,564.19) pesos, representing his backwages from the time of
his dismissal up to the date of this decision;
3.
To pay complainant the amount of Five Hundred Thousand
(P500,000.00) Pesos by way of moral damages;
4.
To pay complainant the amount of Three Hundred Thousand
(P300,000.00) Pesos by way of exemplary damages;
5.
To pay complainant attorney’s fees equivalent to ten
(10%) percent of the total monetary award;
6.
Should reinstatement be no longer possible, to pay
complainant separation pay of one (1) month salary for every year of service.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC and on
As we have discussed above, there
must be evidence to sustain the basis for the alleged breach of the trust and
confidence in an employee. Without which, such ground would be used
indiscriminately in trampling the rights of workers to their security of
tenure.
. . .
We now proceed to the issue of
questionable receipts being raised by the respondents. We find and so hold that
this matter was satisfactorily explained by the complainant that he was
authorized by the proprietor of Tobs Meat Supply, Mr. Edmund Jumuad.
Furthermore, the affidavit executed by the latter gives the reason for the use
of his receipts… We find nothing unusual [or] irregular with the transaction.
After all, Mr. Jumuad had a hand in the delivery of the hams. In the absence of
any controverting evidence which is obtaining in the instant case, We would
even find that the transaction benefited the respondent company for getting the
maximum worth of its money.
With respect to the receipts issued
for the liquor (Fundador Brandy), We agree with the complainant that he never
had any transaction with the respondent company. If any, the transaction was
made personally with co-workers who wanted to procure the said liquor at a low
price. We, therefore, find no evidence to support such a conclusion of loss of
trust and confidence on the part of the complainant as claimed by the
respondent.
On the matter of the award of
damages … [a] careful evaluation of the records showed that at the time the
complainant was suddenly issued a written order to consume all his vacation
leave credits he was conducting a meeting or conference with the company’s
branch managers. The said order did not mention any reason why he was being
directed to take his leave and consume all leaves available at that time. It,
however, stated, among others, that he should surrender all his
accountabilities to another officer of the company. It needs no stretching of
the imagination that such situation had created mixed thoughts and/or
speculations in the minds of the said branch managers and other employees as
well. These thoughts are either of sympathy or ridicule. Either way, it
necessarily caused worries and anxieties in the mind of complainant being in
the dark as to why he was suddenly asked to surrender all his accountabilities
and take a leave. This is made even worse when on the following day, February
11, 2000, respondent communicated to the Manila International Airport Authority
(MIAA) and requested that the application of complainant for his renewal of his
gate pass [be denied as] the complainant will no longer be reporting to the
said office. To Our mind, this has effectively sealed the complainant’s fate
with respondents without even the benefit of due process. We, therefore, find
and so hold that there is sufficient basis to sustain the award of damages to
complainant.
. . .
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is
DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED en
toto.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
having been denied, the case was elevated to the CA.
On November 20, 2003, the CA rendered a
Decision modifying the Decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC but only
with respect to the award of damages, thus:
We now proceed to the issue of
damages awarded to private respondent. The NLRC sustained the award of moral
and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, in view of the attendant
circumstances which it held showed bad faith on the part of petitioner’s
officers who unceremoniously served a memo on private respondent ordering him
to consume his remaining vacation leave credits while he was in the middle of a
seminar/conference for branch managers. The sudden and unexplained cancellation
of his access to the MIAA General Aviation Compound and renewal application of
ID/Control Pass, which effectively prevented him from performing his usual
duties, amounted to virtual termination and the subsequent memo requiring him
to submit his written explanation to the charges against him followed by a
summary meeting/hearing and culminating in his dismissal within a span of only
a few days – clearly demonstrated bad faith and oppressive exercise of
management prerogative towards private respondent who is a ranking managerial
employee. The Labor Arbiter thus noted that such ‘knee-jerk’ reaction on the
part of petitioner’s officers resulted in the unjustified dismissal of private
respondent for an unfounded charge which caused extreme anxiety and embarrassment
to private respondent.
We do not agree.
Exemplary and moral damages are
proper when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud, or
constitutes an act oppressive to labor in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy. It is basic that for moral damages to be awarded,
the claimant must satisfactorily prove its factual basis and causal connection
with the respondent’s acts.[7]
In this case, however, We fail to
conclude that the officers of petitioner company acted in a malevolent or
oppressive manner in the course of investigating the questionable receipts
submitted by private respondent to liquidate the cash advance used for payment
of the hams purchased by him. Admittedly, he signed those receipts but made it
appear as the true signature of the owner. Since upon initial inquiry made by
the Chief Accountant, it was discovered that the Tobs Meat Supply did not
officially issue the two (2) receipts in the regular course of business while
the receipts for the Fundador Brandy did not bear a Tax Identification Number
(TIN) and hence also unofficial, there [was] reasonable basis for the
petitioner to investigate further and act to protect its interest. Private
respondent was given the opportunity to explain his side, which though
belatedly done by petitioner’s officers, due process was accorded said
employee. And even if private respondent was subsequently disallowed access to
the MIAA and his Control ID/Pass renewal application revoked, this was made at
the time the matter was being investigated and does not by itself constitute
harassment.
Clearly, the award of moral and
exemplary damages [is] not proper in this case. Likewise, it has been held that
attorney’s fees are not recoverable where there is no sufficient showing of bad
faith on the part of petitioner-employer.[8]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
present petition is hereby PARTLY GIVEN DUE COURSE. The challenged Decision
dated April 28, 2003 and Resolution dated July 31, 2003 of the NLRC are hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of moral and exemplary damages, as
well as attorney’s fees, is hereby DELETED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Petitioner contends that:[10]
1.
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the dismissal
for loss of trust and confidence did not have reasonable factual basis;
2.
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
imposition of the penalty of dismissal on respondent for falsifying the
receipts is too harsh; and
3.
The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the award of
reinstatement and full backwages in respondent’s favor.
Petitioner
argues, as follows:
Firstly, respondent was dishonest, thus,
his termination was with just cause. He profited out of the clandestine
transactions in question. He attempted to hide his identity as the real
supplier of the hams by submitting to the company, which he is supposed to
protect, falsified receipts;
Secondly, respondent effectively transacted
business with the company of which he is the Vice-President through his subordinates
when he sold Fundador Brandy to them. He is claiming that such transactions
were purely private between him and the company employees. This contention is
untenable because the payments therefor were to be eventually shouldered by the
company. That is precisely the reason why the receipts which he issued for the
payments of the bottles of brandy were submitted to the company for the
corresponding liquidation process. Respondent, therefore, transacted business
with the company through his subordinates over whom, wittingly or unwittingly,
he undeniably exercised moral ascendancy in doing so. This was evidently
unethical, a serious misconduct that justifies the termination of his
employment. His submission of the receipts for the brandy without a Tax
Identification Number (TIN), in violation of the company requirement which he
knew very well, added to the gravity of his undesirable actions;
Thirdly, based on jurisprudence, the employer is allowed a wide latitude in
terminating the employment of a managerial employee for loss of trust and
confidence, then it follows that petitioner be given a wider latitude in dismissing respondent who
was not a mere managerial employee but somebody holding the second highest
position in the company as Vice-President;
Fourthly, the penalty of termination is not
harsh considering respondent’s position in the company;
Finally, since respondent was dismissed
with just cause and with due process, the order of reinstatement and backwages
is oppressive to petitioner.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
employer to show that the dismissal is for a valid and just cause. Failure to
do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and,
therefore, was illegal.[11] It is sufficient to show by substantial
evidence that the employee is guilty of misconduct which makes the latter
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[12]
Both
the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner failed to establish that the
dismissal of respondent from his position was justifiable. Absent any showing
of arbitrariness and evidence to the contrary, the Court will not disturb the
conclusion shared by the NLRC and the CA.
The
Court agrees that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon respondent is disproportionate
to the alleged infraction committed by the latter. As aptly explained by the
CA:[13]
In
this case, We find no such reasonable basis to conclude that private respondent
has breached the trust reposed in him by petitioner whose claim that he had
purposely or knowingly concealed his identity as the real supplier of the hams
was not supported by substantial evidence. Evidence submitted by private
respondent clearly showed [that] it was really TOBS Meat Supply owned by Jumuad
who supplied the Purefoods Fiesta hams since if not for the latter’s contact as
a meat dealer, private respondent could not have procured those hams at the
price fixed by the management committee who agreed to his suggestion/proposal
to make the purchase in behalf of the company. Hence, We cannot give credence
to petitioner’s contention at this stage that the dismissal of private
respondent was justified since petitioner-employer had reasonable basis for the
loss of trust and confidence in said managerial employee. Besides, for the
allegedly suspicious act of affixing a false signature on the questioned
receipts covering an otherwise regular and fair sales transaction on behalf of
the company, the extreme penalty of dismissal from service is rather too harsh.
It has been held that where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever
missteps that may have been committed by the worker ought not to be visited
with a consequence so severe such as a dismissal from employment.[14]
As shown by the records, respondent had
been a competent and loyal employee of the company which is the reason why he
was promoted several times until he became the Operations Manager. Also, taking
into account respondent’s length of service to the company, the penalty of
dismissal is not commensurate with his alleged misconduct.[15]
Moreover, the mere fact that
respondent was a managerial employee did not give unbridled discretion for
petitioner to remove him from his job on the ground of loss of confidence. In Maglutac
v. NLRC,[16] this
Court declared that while an employer has its own interests to protect, and
pursuant thereto, it may terminate a managerial employee for a just cause, such
prerogative to dismiss or lay off
an employee must be exercised without
abuse of discretion. Its
implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The
employer should bear in mind that in the execution of said prerogative, what is
at stake is not only the employee’s position but his livelihood. The fact that
one is a managerial employee does not by itself exclude him from the protection
of the constitutional guaranty of security of tenure.
Respondent did not appeal from the CA
decision.
In any case,
with regard to the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees,
the Court agrees with the CA that the same are not recoverable under the
circumstances. Respondent failed to show that petitioner’s action to terminate
his employment was done in bad faith.
The
finding that the employee had been wrongfully dismissed does not automatically
warrant an award of moral and other damages. An award of moral damages cannot
be justified solely upon the premise that the employer fired his employee
without just cause or due process. Additional facts must be pleaded and proven
for the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code. There must be a showing
that the dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to
labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy,
and that social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety and mental anguish
resulted therefrom.[17]
Likewise, exemplary damages may be
awarded only if the dismissal was shown to have been effected in a wanton,
oppressive or malevolent
manner.[18] In the same vein, attorney’s fees are not
recoverable absent any sufficient evidence of bad faith on the part of the
employer.[19]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals on November 20, 2003 and March 5, 2004,
respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 79079 are hereby AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 29, 51-58.
[3] “I know someone. Let me be the one.”
[4] Docketed as NLRC NCR-30-05-01984-00.
[5] Rollo, pp. 258-259.
[6]
[7] Philippine Veterans Bank v. NLRC, 375 Phil. 957 (1999).
[8] Lopez v. NLRC, 358 Phil. 141 (1998).
[9] Rollo, pp. 64-65.
[10]
[11] Royal Crown Internationale v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78085,
[12] Deles, Jr. v. NLRC, G.R. No.
121348,
[13] Rollo, p. 64.
[14]
[15] North Camarines Lumber Co., Inc.
v. Francisco Barreda, G.R. No.
[16] G.R. No. 78345,
[17] Primero v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. L-72644,
[18] Garcia v. NLRC, G.R. No.
110518,
[19] Lopez v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 124548,