|
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., WILLIAM P.
TIFFANY, E.C. CAVESTANY, and E.M. CRUZ, Petitioners, - versus - HERMIE
G. AGAD and CALTEX UNITED SUPERVISORS’ ASSOCIATION, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 162017 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, DEL
CASTILLO, ABAD,
and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: April
23, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
On
1 September 1983, petitioner Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex) employed
respondent Hermie G. Agad (Agad) as Depot Superintendent-A on a probationary
basis for six months. On 28 February
1984, Agad became a regular employee with a monthly salary of P2,560 and
cost of living assistance of P380.
For
the next eleven years, Agad obtained various commendations[6]
and held the positions of Depot Superintendent-A, Field Engineer, Senior
Superintendent, and Bulk Depot Superintendent until his dismissal on 8 August 1994. Agad received a monthly gross salary of P31,000,
a mid-year bonus equivalent to one month’s salary and 13th month pay
at the time of his termination.
After
Agad had served for two years since 1990 as Superintendent of the Tacloban Bulk
Depot (Depot) in Leyte, Caltex transferred Agad to Bauan Bulk Depot in Batangas
effective 16 May 1992.[7]
To
transfer his belongings from Leyte to Batangas, Agad secured the carpentry
services of Alfredo Delda (Delda), the owner of A.A. Delda Engineering Services
(Delda Services) for the construction of two crates. Agad paid Delda P15,500, evidenced
by Official Receipt No. 0970[8] dated 12 May 1992. Agad submitted the receipt sometime in August
1992 and Caltex reimbursed him the said amount.
On
13 April 1993, Caltex conducted its regular audit of employees’ account and
expenses as of 31 December 1992.[9] The company auditor of Caltex verified the
crating expense incurred by Agad with Delda.
Delda, through an Affidavit dated 5 May 1993,[10]
disclosed that Delda Services did not perform any crating service for Agad or
receive the amount of P15,500 as stated in the official receipt. Delda alleged that he was forced by Agad to
issue the official receipt in order to get a favorable recommendation from the
incoming superintendent of the Depot.
Further
investigations revealed that Arsenio Asperas (Asperas), a carpenter from
Tacloban, was commissioned by Agad to build two wooden crates on 12 May
1992. Asperas attested that Agad paid
him the amount of P400 and he completed the work in 2 ½ days beside the
quarters of Agad inside the Depot.[11] Basilia Villalino (Villalino), a household
staff of the Depot Staff House, corroborated Asperas’ statement in a Sworn
Testimony dated 24 May 1993 that Agad did hire Asperas to make two wooden
crates inside the Depot before he left for his next post.[12]
In
another audit report dated 12 May 1993,[13]
the company auditor declared that 190 pieces of 11 kg. liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) cylinders from the Depot were allegedly withdrawn for scrap and repair
purposes without proper documentation on 8 February 1991 when Agad was still
depot superintendent. Isidro B. Millanes
(Millanes), the depot’s LPG cylinder repair/reconditioning contractor and owner
of IBM Enterprises, claimed that the LPG cylinders were hauled to his compound
and allegedly later sold, upon the express instructions of Agad, to Leyte
Development Corporation and Ernesto Mercado,
a service station dealer.
On
5 July 1993, petitioner E.C. Cavestany (Cavestany), the Regional Manager of
Caltex, issued a Memorandum[14]
to Agad directing him to explain the following audit review findings: (1) the
questionable reimbursement of crating expense; and (2) the alleged unauthorized
withdrawal and sale of 190 pieces of LPG
cylinders.
On
29 July 1993, Agad sent his reply[15]
answering all the charges against him.
Agad stated: (1) that Delda Services constructed the two crates worth P15,500
as evidenced by an official receipt issued by Delda; and (2) that the withdrawal of the scrap LPG
cylinders formed part of his housekeeping duties as depot superintendent. The scrap materials consisting of tanks,
pumps and pipelines of Gebarin, a logging account of Caltex located in Marabut,
Samar, were bidded out to a certain Rogelio “Boy” H. Bato on an “as is, where
is” basis.[16] However, the scrap materials went missing and
Boy Bato demanded that such be replaced with equivalent materials. The scrap LPG cylinders were released instead
after Agad secured the approval of his superiors as evidenced in a Memorandum
dated 12 February 1992.[17] After the approval, Boy Bato’s buyer, a
certain Mr. Ang, allegedly
acquired the scrap cylinders from IBM Enterprises.
Caltex
created an investigating panel chaired by Cavestany to look into the offenses
allegedly committed. On 17 August 1993,
the investigating panel held its first formal inquiry.[18] The transcript of the investigation was dated
2 September 1993.[19]
On 29 April 1994, Caltex placed Agad under
preventive suspension. On 26 May 1994 or
almost 10 months after the first formal inquiry, the investigating panel
conducted another hearing.[20] Two other hearings were held on 14 June and 6
July 1994.
In
a Confidential Memorandum dated 8 August 1994,[21]
Cavestany informed Agad of his dismissal on the grounds of serious misconduct
and loss of trust and confidence, both just causes for termination of
employment. Agad received the memorandum
on 25 August 1994.
On
1 September 1994, respondents Agad and Caltex United Supervisors’ Association
filed a complaint[22]
with the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension with
prayer for full backwages of P31,000 per month from 25 August 1994 until
reinstatement, moral damages of P5,000,000, exemplary damages of P5,000,000
and 10% of the total monetary award as attorney’s fees against petitioners
Caltex and its officers – William P. Tiffany, President and Chief Executive
Officer; E.M. Cruz, General Manager for Distribution; and Cavestany.
On
16 November 1998, the LA rendered a decision in favor of Agad.[23] The LA held that there were no just causes
for Agad’s termination of employment. On
the charge of fraudulent reimbursement of crating expense, the LA found no
basis for this since Delda issued an official receipt which served as best
evidence that the crating expense was actually incurred. According to the LA, Delda’s claim that he
was only forced by Agad to issue the receipt for fear of losing his job as a
contractor does not appear to be credible.
In the administrative inquiry held on 26 May 1994, it was clearly established
that Delda held a grudge against Agad since Agad did not recommend him to be a
contractor of Caltex for failure to meet the minimum capital required of
aspiring contractors. Also, the LA did
not give any weight to the testimonies of Asperas and Villalino since they were
not presented for cross-examination during the investigation.
As
to the charge of unauthorized withdrawal and sale of the LPG cylinders, the LA
ruled that Agad was denied the right to present his witnesses and other
evidence in support of his defense which constitutes a denial of due
process. Thus, the LA ruled that Agad
had been illegally dismissed by Caltex.
The dispositive portion of the LA’s decision states:
Caltex
filed an appeal with the NLRC.
The Ruling of the NLRC
On
6 June 2001, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA. The NLRC held that there existed just causes
which justified Agad’s dismissal. With
regard to the first allegation, the NLRC ruled that the amount of crating expense
reimbursed by Agad was fictitious. The
fact that a receipt was issued by Delda does not conclusively prove that the
crating service was performed by Delda.
At the most, the existence of the receipt only proves its
execution. The NLRC declared that Delda’s
testimony, made under oath, enjoys the presumption of regularity and good
faith. Corroborated by two other
witnesses, Asperas and Villalino, Delda’s testimony clearly established that
Agad was dishonest in his dealings. The
NLRC added that even if the amount involved was only worth P15,500, the
same was of no moment since what was involved was Agad’s propensity to commit
dishonesty against the company. As a supervisor, a greater degree of diligence,
honesty and trust was expected of him.
The NLRC further stated that Caltex had no bad motive to pick on Agad
and tell lies about him if indeed he was trustworthy since Agad was given
awards and commendations before the discovery of the questioned acts.
On
the second allegation, the NLRC ruled that Agad had no authority to withdraw
the LPG cylinders from the Depot. The
NLRC declared that Agad did not observe existing company rules and regulations
in procuring the required forms, in the submission of periodic LPG cylinders
inventory and in selling the LPG cylinders without the requisite bidding. Thus, the NLRC concluded that Caltex validly
dismissed Agad. The dispositive portion
of the NLRC’s decision states:
Agad
filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated 24
September 2002.
Agad
then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. Agad sought the nullification of the decision
of the NLRC.
On
22 May 2003, the CA modified the judgment of the NLRC and ruled in favor of
Agad. On the issue of fraudulent
reimbursement of crating expense, the CA concurred with the LA. According to the CA, the regularity of the
official receipt remained untarnished since the only other proof relied upon by
petitioners, Delda’s affidavit, failed to substantiate his allegations. Delda never assailed the due execution of the
receipt and even admitted that he actually issued the receipt. The supporting affidavits of Asperas and
Villalino, since they were not cross-examined, must be rejected for being
hearsay. Thus, no sufficient evidence was presented to prove that the amount in
the receipt was fictitious. Further, the
CA indicated that Caltex did not make any limitations to the crating expense to
be reimbursed such that Agad was entitled to move his personal and household
effects at reasonable costs.
On
the second issue of unauthorized withdrawal and sale of LPG cylinders, the CA
agreed with the NLRC that Agad did not comply with company rules and
regulations. Nonetheless, the CA held
that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon Agad was too harsh considering that
this was his first infraction and that Agad had been awarded several
commendations in the past and had worked for Caltex for more than 10 years. The dispositive portion of the CA’s decision
states:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED, and the judgment of the NLRC is
hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, finding no
just cause for the termination of employment of the petitioner Hermie G. Agad, we
therefore rule that the petitioner was illegally dismissed; he should be
entitled to reinstatement, with full backwages, from the time of
his illegal dismissal until his reinstatement to his former position as Depot
Superintendent of the Bauan Bulk Depot, or to a similar position without any
loss of seniority rights.
SO ORDERED.[26]
Caltex
filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated 27
January 2004.
Hence,
the instant petition.
The main issue is whether Caltex legally terminated Agad’s
employment on just causes: (1) acts tantamount to serious misconduct and
willful violation of company rules and regulations; and (2) willful breach of
trust and confidence as Depot Superintendent.
Article
282 of the Labor Code states:
ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER.
– An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative
in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by
the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the
employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense
by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of
his family or his duly authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the
foregoing.
In
termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the
dismissal is for just cause. When there is no showing of a clear, valid, and
legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a
case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause.[27]
In the present case, petitioners terminated Agad’s employment
based on these acts: (1) Agad’s submission of a fictitious crating expense
amounting to P15,1500; and (2) the unauthorized withdrawal and sale of
190 pieces of 11 kg. LPG cylinders for his personal gain and profit.
Crating expense is reasonable
Petitioners insist that the CA erred
in ruling that the crating expense of P15,500 was justifiable without
however stating the basis for such a ruling. According to petitioners, the records prove that there
were more than ample evidence to show that the crating expense was
fictitious. Petitioners reiterate the
sworn testimonies of Delda, Esperas, and Villalino, and that of Augusto Cabugao, the Regional Audit Manager
of Caltex, who testified that the crating expense of P15,500 was
unreasonably high considering that depot houses of Caltex were fully furnished
and expenses incurred in transferring personal effects were usually very small.
In R & E Transport,
Inc. v. Latag,[29]
we held that factual issues may be reviewed by the CA when the findings of fact
of the NLRC conflict with those of the LA.
By the same token, this Court may review factual conclusions of the CA
when they are contrary to those of the NLRC or of the LA.
In
the present case, the evidence of the parties with respect to the crating
expense reimbursed by Agad finds discord on the official receipt issued by
Delda vis-a-vis Delda’s sworn testimony denying that he received the
amount stated in the receipt or rendered any crating service for Agad. The petitioners presented the affidavits of
Asperas and Villalino to corroborate Delda’s testimony while Agad relied on the
official receipt as the best evidence that he contracted Delda’s services and
that Delda indeed issued said receipt.
The decisions of the CA and NLRC produced different factual conclusions
on this issue.
After
a careful review of the records, we find no cogent reason to disturb
the findings of the CA.
First,
the official receipt submitted by Agad serves as the best evidence of payment
and is presumed regular on its face absent any showing to the contrary.
Second,
records show that the reimbursement of the crating expense was approved by
Agad’s superior upon presentment of the receipt. At the time, Agad’s superior did not mention
that the amount of the crating expense incurred was unreasonable.
Third,
Delda, in his affidavit, disclosed that he was forced to issue the receipt in
order to get a favorable recommendation from the incoming superintendent who
would replace Agad in the Depot.
However, in the same affidavit, Delda mentioned that he had been a
standby worker at the Depot from 1956 to 1982 and a piece-worker from 1982 up
to 1993, the date he executed the affidavit.
It appears then that Delda had established a name for himself and his
business with Caltex. Any favorable recommendation
from Agad, as the outgoing superintendent, would not provide much impact
compared to the reputation he had built all those years.
Fourth,
the testimonies of the two corroborating witnesses, Esperas and Villalino,
cannot be given credence since Agad was not given an opportunity to
cross-examine them. Their testimonies are considered as hearsay evidence.
Last,
petitioners did not present any other evidence to show that Agad violated
company policy dealing with crating expenses to be limited to a certain
amount. Reasonableness was the only
criterion given by the employer.
Thus,
all these taken into consideration, we conclude that petitioners were not able
to fully substantiate the alleged fictitious reimbursement of the crating
expense. Delda’s testimony alone, without any corroborating evidence to prove
otherwise, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the
issuance of his own official receipt which he gave to Agad.
Withdrawal and sale of 190 pieces of
LPG cylinders is unauthorized
Petitioners
assert that Agad committed serious violation of internal control procedures and
company policies due to the following: (1) no Records of Materials
Received/Delivered (RMRD) were issued to cover the withdrawal of the empty
cylinders for repair purposes; (2) the testimony of Millanes demonstrates that the cylinders were
initially stored at his premises on 8 February 1991 and later sold as good
units without bidding, upon the instructions of Agad, to Leyte Development and
Ernesto Mercado; (3) no evidence was submitted to show that the sales proceeds
were turned over to Caltex and petitioners surmise that the total prevailing
price of the LPG cylinders would have been from a low of P95,000 to a
high of P133,000; (4) the
periodic report of inventory of the LPG cylinders, considered part of
storehouse materials, to Head Office Accounting was not submitted by the depot;
and (5) the depot clerk acted beyond his authority when he approved the gate
passes for the withdrawal of the cylinders.[30]
Respondents,
on the other hand, maintain the following: (1) that as depot
superintendent, Agad had the authority
to transfer materials, including
scrap, from one place to another; (2)
Agad had specific authority, per Memorandum dated 12 February 1992, to withdraw
the scrap materials as replacement for the missing scrap tanks, pumps and
pipelines earlier sold to Boy Bato; (3) the withdrawal of the LPG cylinders was
covered by gate passes 8499 and 8500, negating any fraudulent intent on Agad’s
part; and (4) petitioners’ own witness,
Millanes, testified that the LPG cylinders withdrawn were actually junk or
scrap materials and of no accounting value.
In addition, even assuming that the withdrawal of the LPG cylinders
was unauthorized, the penalty of
dismissal is too harsh a penalty.
We
agree with petitioners.
The findings of the CA in the present
case revealed:
With regard to the
second issue, the petitioner contends that the withdrawal/sale of 190 LPG
cylinders in the Tacloban Bulk Depot was well within his authority as a Depot
Superintendent and covered by an authority stated in an instrument, as a
consequence of a contract of sale with Mr. Bato. Furthermore, such cylinders were already
considered as scrap or without monetary value.
Therefore, its withdrawal/sale could not constitute just cause for
dismissal.
The contention is
without merit. Although his position as
Depot Superintendent includes such authority, as part of his housekeeping
duties, it does not automatically justify his acts which were contrary to
company rules and regulations. The
company rules required the issuance of RMRDs for any company properties with
value to be withdrawn from the Bulk Depot.
Petitioner failed to comply with this rule. Furthermore, he ordered the sale of the
cylinders without bidding, and there were no evidence that the proceeds of such
sale were turned over to the company.
Mere existence of authority does not justify his acts, he must show that
he properly exercised such authority as contemplated in the company rules and
regulations, especially when the act is not within his discretion.
His contention that such
withdrawal mas merely a part of a contract of sale between the company and Mr.
Bato, is likewise erroneous. The
instrument never mentioned of any LPG cylinders, what was mentioned therein was
3,000 B.I. plates. And even if the
contract involved LPG cylinders, still, its withdrawal must be accounted for.
The petitioners’
assumption that the subject LPG cylinders were merely scrap materials is
likewise erroneous. The cylinders, although declared as scraps, still has
monetary value because it can still be sold even as scrap materials. Moreover, even if such cylinders were merely
scrap, the petitioner cannot just appropriate them without the company’s
consent. Being company property, its
disposal is still within the discretion and prerogative of the company.[31]
In
the same manner, the NLRC, in its Decision dated 6 June 2001, held:
x x x It was sufficiently
established that complainant Agad had no authority to withdraw the LPG
cylinders from the Tacloban Bulk Depot.
Complainant Agad’s claim that he merely withdrew the LPG cylinders in
view of the loss of certain scrap materials earlier sold to Mr. Boy Bato is
belied by the fact that the alleged loss was not established. On the other hand, the records show that
complainant Agad’s request for the withdrawal of scrap materials only covered
3,000 kilograms of B.I. plates. This
request, however, did not include the LPG cylinders, numbering 190, which were
withdrawn from the Tacloban Depot.
Complainant
Agad also did not observe the existing company rules and regulations on the
withdrawal of LPG cylinders from the Tacloban Bulk Depot. According to the Audit Report, which was not
controverted by complainant Agad, no Records of Materials Received/Delivered
were issued to cover the withdrawal of the cylinders. Also, the periodic inventory of the LPG
cylinders was not submitted by complainant Agad to the accounting
department. Further, the LPG cylinders
were not sold through bidding, which was corroborated by the statement of Mr.
Isidro B. Millanes, who testified that the subject LPG cylinders were first
stored at his premises and later sold without bidding upon the express
instructions of complainant Agad.
In this regards, it cannot be
validly claimed that the LPG cylinders in question were mere scrap materials,
i.e. they had no monetary value anymore and therefore not subject to the strict
requirement laid down by the company rules and regulations. As testified to by Mr. Cabugao, and by no
less than complainant Agad himself and his own witnesses, Mr. George Taberrah,
and Mr. Roger San Jose, Jr., the LPG containers have monetary value as they can
still be sold even as scrap.[32]
The findings of the CA and NLRC
establish the following: (1) Agad’s request for withdrawal of the 190 pieces of
LPG cylinders as stated in a Memorandum dated 12 February 1992 cannot be given
credence since the Memorandum pertains to the replacement of the scrap
materials due to Boy Bato consisting of 3,000 kilograms of black iron plates and
not to the subject LPG cylinders; (2) Agad did not observe Caltex’s rules and
regulations when he transferred the said cylinders to Millanes’ compound
without the RMRD form as required under Caltex’s Field Accounting Manual; (3)
Agad gave specific instructions to Millanes to sell the cylinders without
bidding to third parties in violation of company rules; (4) Agad failed to submit the periodic inventory
report of the LPG cylinders to the accounting department; (5) Agad did not
remit the proceeds of the sale of the LPG cylinders; and (6) even if considered as scrap materials,
the LPG cylinders still had monetary value which Agad cannot appropriate for
himself without Caltex’s consent.
Considering these findings, it is clear
that Agad committed a serious infraction amounting to theft of company
property. This act is akin to a serious
misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer in connection with his work, a just cause for termination of
employment recognized under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code.
Misconduct has been defined as a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act,
a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and
not mere error in judgment. To be
serious, the misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character.[33]
Further, Agad’s conduct constitutes
willful breach of the trust reposed in him, another just cause for termination
of employment recognized under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code. Loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause
for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that the employee
concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence. The employee must be invested with confidence
on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, care and protection of the
employer’s property and funds.[34]
As a superintendent, Agad occupied a
position tasked to perform key and sensitive functions which necessarily
involved the custody and protection of Caltex’s properties. Consequently, Agad comes within the purview
of the trust and confidence rule.
In Sagales v. Rustan’s Commercial
Corporation,[35] we held
that in loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for dismissal, it is
sufficient that there must only be some basis for the loss of trust and
confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe, if not to entertain
the moral conviction, that the employee concerned is responsible for the
misconduct and that his participation in the misconduct rendered him absolutely
unworthy of trust and confidence.
In sum, even if Agad did not commit the
alleged charge of fictitious reimbursement of crating expense, he was found to
have acted without authority, a serious infraction amounting to theft of company
property, in the withdrawal and sale of the 190 pieces of LPG cylinders owned
by the company. Caltex, as the employer,
has discharged the burden of proof necessary in terminating the services of
Agad, who was ascertained to have
blatantly abused his position and authority.
Thus, Agad’s dismissal from employment based on (1) acts tantamount to
serious misconduct or willful violation of company rules and regulations; and
(2) willful breach of trust and confidence as Depot Superintendent was lawful
and valid under the circumstances as mandated by Article 282 (a) and (c) of the
Labor Code.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the
petition. We SET ASIDE the
Decision dated 22 May 2003 and Resolution dated 27 January 2004 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74199. We DECLARE as valid the
termination from employment of respondent Hermie G. Agad for just causes
prescribed under the law.
SO
ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest 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.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusion 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 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Rollo, pp. 33-44. Penned by Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Justices Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Danilo B. Pine, concurring.
[3] Id. at 65-66.
[4] CA rollo, pp. 45-53. Penned by Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo with Commissioner Roy V. Señeres, concurring. Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso inhibited from the case.
[5] Id. at 54-55.
[6] Id. at 72-73 and 130-136.
[7] Id. at 129.
[8] Id. at 114.
[9] Id. at 112-113.
[10] Id. at 115.
[11] Rollo, p. 14.
[12] Id. at 15.
[13] CA rollo, p. 116.
[14] Id. at 144.
[15] Id. at 146-147.
[16] Id. at 208-209. Deed of Sale with Waiver executed by Caltex and Rogelio Bato on 8 January 1992.
[17] Id. at 210.
[18] Id. at 75.
[19] Id. at 162-166.
[20] Id. at 167-173.
[21] Id. at 152.
[22] Id. at 66-67. Docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-06449-94.
[23] Id. at 57-65.
[24] Id. at 64.
[25] Id. at 52.
[26] Rollo, p. 43.
[27] AMA Computer College-East Rizal v.
Ignacio, G.R. No. 178520, 23 June 2009, citing Cosep v. National Labor Relations Commission, 353
Phil. 148, 157-158 (1998).
[28] Id., citing Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank v. Cabrera, G.R. No. 160368, 30 March 2005, 454 SCRA 792, 803.
[29] 467 Phil. 355 (2004).
[30] Based on the Audit Review Report dated 12 May 1993. Supra note 13.
[31] Rollo, p. 40.
[32] CA rollo, pp. 49-50.
[33] Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Calamba v. Villas, 447 Phil. 692 (2003).
[34] Cruz v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 165586, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 340.
[35] G.R. No. 166554, 27 November 2008, 572 SCRA 89, citing Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. 145800, 22 January 2003, 395 SCRA 720 and Gonzales v. NLRC, G.R. No. 131653, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 195.