Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
HOSPITAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. - Petitioner, - versus - HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. – Respondents. |
G.R. No.
176287 Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: January 31, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
Before
this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside
the Decision[1]
dated May 24, 2006 and Resolution[2]
dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special First Division, in
CA-G.R. SP No. 73189, entitled Hospital Management Services, Inc.-Medical
Center Manila Employees Association-AFW and Edna R. De Castro v. National Labor
Relations Commission, Hospital Management Services, Inc.-Medical Center Manila
and Asuncion Abaya-Morido, which reversed and set aside the Decision[3]
dated February 28, 2002 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
Second Division, in NLRC NCR No. 00-07-07716-99 (CA No. 027766-01), and its
Resolution[4]
dated May 31, 2002. The assailed CA
decision ordered petitioner Hospital Management Services, Inc.-Medical Center
Manila to reinstate respondent Edna R. De Castro to her former position without
loss of seniority rights or by payroll reinstatement, pursuant to the Labor Arbiter's
Decision dated January 18, 2001, but with payment of full backwages and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the expiration of the
14-day suspension period up to actual reinstatement.
The
antecedent facts are as follows:
Respondent
De Castro started working as a staff nurse at petitioner hospital since September
28, 1990, until she was dismissed on July 20, 1999.
Between
2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. of March 24, 1999, while respondent De Castro and
ward-clerk orientee Gina Guillergan were at the nurse station on night duty (from
10:00 p.m. of March 23, 1999 to 6:00 a.m. of March 24, 1999), one Rufina
Causaren, an 81-year-old patient confined at Room 724-1 of petitioner hospital
for “gangrenous wound on her right anterior leg and right forefoot” and
scheduled for operation on March 26, 1999, fell from the right side of the bed
as she was trying to reach for the bedpan.
Because of what happened, the niece of patient Causaren staying in the
room was awakened and she sought assistance from the nurse station. Instead of personally seeing the patient,
respondent De Castro directed ward-clerk orientee Guillergan to check the
patient. The vital signs of the patient
were normal. Later, the physician on
duty and the nursing staff on duty for the next shift again attended to patient
Causaren.
Chief
Nurse Josefina M. Villanueva informed Dr. Asuncion Abaya-Morido, president and
hospital director, about the incident and requested for a formal
investigation. On May 11, 1999, the
legal counsel of petitioner hospital directed respondent De Castro and three
other nurses on duty, Staff Nurse Janith V. Paderes and Nursing Assistants
Marilou Respicio and Bertilla T. Tatad, to appear before the Investigation
Committee on May 13, 1999, 2:00 p.m., at the conference room of petitioner
hospital. During the committee investigation,
respondent De Castro explained that at around 2:30 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., she was
attending to a newly-admitted patient at Room 710 and, because of this, she
instructed Nursing Assistant Tatad to check the vital signs of patient
Causaren, with ward-clerk orientee Guillergan accompanying the latter. When the two arrived at the room, the patient
was in a squatting position, with the right arm on the bed and the left hand holding
on to a chair.
In
the Investigation Report[5]
dated May 20, 1999, the Investigation Committee found that the subject incident
happened between 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. of March 23, 1999. The three other nurses for the shift were not
at the nurse station. Staff Nurse
Paderes was then in another nurse station encoding the medicines for the
current admissions of patients, while Nursing Assistant Respicio was making the
door name tags of admitted patients and Nursing Assistant Tatad delivered some
specimens to the laboratory. The
committee recommended that despite her more than seven years of service,
respondent De Castro should be terminated from employment for her lapse in
responding to the incident and for trying to manipulate and influence her staff
to cover-up the incident. As for Staff
Nurse Paderes and Nursing Assistants Respicio and Tatad, the committee
recommended that they be issued warning notices for failure to note the
incident and endorse it to the next duty shift and, although they did not have
any knowledge of the incident, they should be reminded not to succumb to
pressure from their superiors in distorting the facts.
On
July 5, 1999, Janette A. Calixijan, HRD Officer of petitioner hospital, issued
a notice of termination, duly noted by Dr. Abaya-Morido, upon respondent De
Castro, effective at the close of office hours of July 20, 1999, for alleged
violation of company rules and regulations, particularly paragraph 16 (a), Item
3, Chapter XI of the Employee's Handbook and Policy Manual of 1996 (Employee's
Handbook):[6] (1) negligence to follow company policy on
what to do with patient Rufina Causaren who fell from a hospital bed; (2) failure to record and refer the incident
to the physician-[on- duty and] allow[ing] a significant lapse of time before
reporting the incident; (3) deliberately
instructing the staff to follow her version of the incident in order to cover
up the lapse; and (4) negligence and
carelessness in carrying out her duty as staff nurse-on-duty when the incident
happened.
On
July 21, 1999, respondent De Castro, with the assistance of respondent Hospital
Management Services Inc.-Medical Center Manila Employees Association-AFW, filed
a Complaint[7]
for illegal dismissal against petitioners with prayer for reinstatement and payment
of full backwages without loss of seniority rights, P20,000.00 moral damages, P10,000.00 exemplary damages, and 10%
of the total monetary award as attorney's fees.
On
January 18, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision,[8]
ordering petitioner hospital to reinstate respondent De Castro to her former
position or by payroll reinstatement, at the option of the former, without loss
of seniority rights, but without backwages and, also, directing petitioners to
notify her to report to work. Her prayer
for damages and attorney's fees was denied.
The Labor Arbiter concluded that although respondent De Castro committed
the act complained of, being her first offense, the penalty to be meted should
not be dismissal from the service, but merely 7 to 14 days suspension as the
same was classified as a less serious offense under the Employee’s Handbook.
On appeal by respondent De Castro,
the NLRC rendered a Decision dated February 28, 2002, reversing the findings of
the Labor Arbiter and dismissing the complaint against the petitioners. It observed that respondent De Castro lacked
diligence and prudence in carrying out her duty when, instead of personally
checking on the condition of patient Causaren after she fell from the bed, she
merely sent ward-clerk orientee Guillergan to do the same in her behalf and for
influencing her staff to conceal the incident.
On
May 31, 2002, the NLRC denied respondent De Castro's Motion for Reconsideration
dated April 16, 2002.
On
May 24, 2006, the CA reversed and set aside the Decision of the NLRC and
reinstated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, with modification that respondent
De Castro should be entitled to payment of full backwages and other benefits,
or their monetary equivalent, computed from the expiration of the 14-day-suspension
period up to actual reinstatement. The
CA ruled that while respondent De Castro's failure to personally attend to
patient Causeran amounted to misconduct, however, being her first offense, such
misconduct could not be categorized as serious or grave that would warrant the
extreme penalty of termination from the service after having been employed for
almost 9 years. It added that the
subject infraction was a less serious offense classified under “commission of
negligent or careless acts during working time or on company property that
resulted in the personal injury or property damage causing expenses to be
incurred by the company” stated in subparagraph 11, paragraph 3 (B), Chapter XI
[on the Rules on Discipline] of the Employee's Handbook[9]
of petitioner hospital. The CA did not
sustain the NLRC's ruling that respondent De Castro's dismissal was proper on
the ground that her offense was aggravated to serious misconduct on account of
her alleged act of asking her co-employees to lie for her as this fact was not
proven.
Petitioners'
motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in the Resolution dated January
10, 2007.
Hence, this present
petition.
Petitioners
allege that the deliberate refusal to attend to patient Causaren after the
latter fell from the bed justifies respondent De Castro's termination from employment
due to serious misconduct. They claim
that respondent De Castro failed to: (a)
personally assist the patient; (b) check
her vital signs and examine if she sustained any injury; (c) refer the matter to the patient's
attending physician or any physician-on-duty; and (d) note the incident in the report sheet for
endorsement to the next shift for proper monitoring. They also aver that respondent De Castro
persuaded her co-nurses to follow her version of what transpired so as to cover
up her nonfeasance.
In
her Comment, respondent De Castro counters that there was no serious misconduct
or gross negligence committed, but simple misconduct or minor negligence which
would warrant the penalty of 7 to 14 days of suspension under the Employee's
Handbook of petitioner hospital. She
denies exerting influence over the four nursing personnel, but points out that
it was Chief Nurse Villanueva, a close friend of patient Causaren's niece, who
persuaded the four nursing staff to retract their statements appearing in the
incident reports as to the approximate time of occurrence, from 2:00 a.m. to
3:00 a.m. of March 24, 1999 to 11:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. of March 23, 1999, so
as to pin her for negligence. She
appeals for leniency, considering that the subject infraction was her first
offense in a span of almost nine years of employment with petitioner hospital.
We
affirm with modification the CA ruling which declared petitioners guilty of
illegal dismissal.
Article 282 (b) of the
Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment for gross and
habitual neglect by the employee of his duties.
The CA ruled that per the Employee’s Handbook of petitioner hospital,
respondent De Castro’s infraction is classified as a less serious offense for “commission
of negligent acts during working time” as set forth in subparagraph 11,
paragraph 3 (B) of Chapter XI[10]
thereof. Petitioners anchor respondent
De Castro’s termination of employment on the ground of serious misconduct for
failure to personally attend to patient Causaren who fell from the bed as she
was trying to reach for the bedpan. Based
on her evaluation of the situation, respondent De Castro saw no necessity to
record in the chart of patient Causaren the fact that she fell from the bed as
the patient did not suffer any injury and her vital signs were normal. She surmised that the incident was not of a
magnitude that would require medical intervention as even the patient and her
niece did not press charges against her by reason of the subject incident.
It is incumbent upon
respondent De Castro to ensure that patients, covered by the nurse station to
which she was assigned, be accorded utmost health care at all times without any
qualification or distinction. Respondent
De Castro’s failure to personally assist patient Causaren, check her vital
signs and examine if she sustained any injury, refer the matter to the
patient's attending physician or any physician-on-duty, and note the incident
in the report sheet for endorsement to the next shift for proper monitoring
constitute serious misconduct that warrants her termination of employment. After attending to the toxic patients under
her area of responsibility, respondent De Castro should have immediately
proceeded to check the health condition of patient Causaren and, if necessary,
request the physician-on-duty to diagnose her further. More importantly, respondent De Castro should
make everything of record in the patient’s chart as there might be a possibility
that while the patient may appear to be normal at the time she was initially
examined, an injury as a consequence of her fall may become manifest only in
the succeeding days of her confinement.
The patient’s chart is a repository of one’s medical history and, in
this regard, respondent De Castro should have recorded the subject incident in
the chart of patient Causaren so that any subsequent discomfort or injury of
the patient arising from the incident may be accorded proper medical treatment.
Neglect of duty, to be a
ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the
performance of one's duties. Habitual
neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances. A
single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the
dismissal of the employee.[11] Despite our finding of culpability against
respondent De Castro; however, we do not see any wrongful intent, deliberate
refusal, or bad faith on her part when, instead of personally attending to
patient Causaren, she requested Nursing Assistant Tatad and ward-clerk orientee
Guillergan to see the patient, as she was then attending to a newly-admitted
patient at Room 710. It was her judgment
call, albeit an error of judgment, being the staff nurse with presumably more
work experience and better learning curve, to send Nursing Assistant Tatad and
ward-clerk orientee Guillergan to check on the health condition of the patient,
as she deemed it best, under the given situation, to attend to a newly-admitted
patient who had more concerns that needed to be addressed accordingly. Being her first offense, respondent De Castro
cannot be said to be grossly negligent so as to justify her termination of
employment. Moreover, petitioners’
allegation, that respondent De Castro exerted undue pressure upon her co-nurses
to alter the actual time of the incident so as to exculpate her from any
liability, was not clearly substantiated.
Negligence is defined as
the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person
would have exercised in a similar situation.[12] The Court emphasizes that the nature of the
business of a hospital requires a higher degree of caution and exacting
standard of diligence in patient management and health care as what is involved
are lives of patients who seek urgent medical assistance. An act or omission that falls short of the
required degree of care and diligence amounts to serious misconduct which constitutes
a sufficient ground for dismissal.
However, in some cases, the
Court had ruled that sanctioning an erring employee with suspension would
suffice as the extreme penalty of dismissal would be too harsh.[13] Considering that this was the first offense
of respondent De Castro in her nine (9) years of employment with petitioner
hospital as a staff nurse without any previous derogatory record and, further, as
her lapse was not characterized by any wrongful motive or deceitful conduct, the
Court deems it appropriate that, instead of the harsh penalty of dismissal, she
would be suspended for a period of six (6) months without pay, inclusive of the
suspension for a period of 14 days which she had earlier served. Thereafter, petitioner hospital should
reinstate respondent Edna R. De Castro to her former position without loss of
seniority rights, full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits,
or their monetary equivalent, computed from the expiration of her suspension of
six (6) months up to the time of actual reinstatement.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 24, 2006 and
Resolution dated January 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals, Special First
Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 73189, which reversed and set aside the Decision
dated February 28, 2002 and Resolution dated May 31, 2002 of the National Labor
Relations Commission, Second Division, are AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATION insofar as respondent Edna R. De Castro is found guilty
of gross negligence and is SUSPENDED
for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS without
pay, inclusive of the suspension for a period of 14 days which she had earlier
served. Petitioner Hospital Management
Services, Inc.-Medical Center Manila is ORDERED
to reinstate respondent Edna R. De Castro to her former position without loss
of seniority rights, full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other
benefits, or their monetary equivalent, computed from the expiration of her
suspension of six (6) months up to the time of actual reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
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
Second
Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now a retired member of this Court), with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Aurora Santiago-Lagman, concurring, rollo, pp. 24-39.
[2]
[3] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, with Commissioners Victoriano R. Calaycay and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring; id. at 100-114.
[4]
[5] Prepared by UPSIPHI-Legal Counsel Atty. Zaldy V. Trespeses, Chief Nurse Josefina M. Villanueva, and HRD Head Janette A. Calixijan, id. at 59-62.
[6] COMPANY RULES A – Serious Offense: Disciplinary Action: for Discharge/Termination
x x x x
16. Other serious offenses or commission of acts inimical to the interest of the corporation. x x x (CA rollo, pp. 58-59)
[7]
[8] Per Felipe T. Garduque II, rollo pp. 81-87.
[9] CA rollo, p. 60.
[10] See note 9.
[11] St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. and Robert Kuan v. Estrelito Notario, G.R. No. 152166, October 20, 2010. (Citation omitted)
[12]
Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Silayro, G.R. No. 172528, February 26,
2008, 546 SCRA 628.
[13]
Id.; Perez v.