Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, |
|
G.R. No. 173774 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
MA. LUISA BELTRAN, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
January 30, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
As the law
regards workers with compassion, an employers right to discipline them should
be tempered with compassion as well. In
line with this, the imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal is justified
only when there are sufficient grounds as supported by substantial evidence.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
assails the November 25, 2005 Decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67960, which granted the
petition filed therewith, reversed the May 30, 2001 Decision[3]
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and accordingly affirmed the
July 16, 1999 Decision[4]
of the Labor Arbiter ordering petitioner Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) to
reinstate respondent Ma. Luisa Beltran (Beltran) to her former position but
without payment of backwages. Likewise
assailed is the CA Resolution[5]
dated July 19, 2006 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration thereto.
Factual
Antecedents
Beltran was employed by MERALCO on
December 16, 1987. At the time material
to this case, she was holding the position of Senior Branch Clerk at MERALCOs P15,164.48 from Collection Route
Supervisor Berlin Marcos (Marcos), which the latter received from customer Andy
Chang (Chang). The cash payment was
being made in lieu of a returned check earlier issued as payment for Changs
electric bill. Beltran was at first hesitant
as it was not part of her regular duties to accept payments from customers but
was later on persuaded by Marcos persistence. Hence, Beltran received the payment and issued
Auxiliary Receipt No. 87964[6]
which she dated September 30, 1996, a Monday, instead of September 28, 1996. This was done to show that it was an
accommodation, an accepted practice in the office. She thereafter placed the money and the
original auxiliary receipt and other documents pertinent to the returned check underneath
her other files inside the drawer of her table.
Beltran, however, was only able to
remit Changs payment on January 13, 1997. Thus, in a Memorandum[7]
dated January 16, 1997, she was placed under preventive suspension effective
January 20, 1997 pending completion of an investigation. MERALCO considered as misappropriation
or withholding of company funds her failure to immediately remit said payment in
violation of its Code on Employee Discipline. Investigation thereafter ensued.[8]
In her Sinumpaang Salaysay,[9]
Beltran admitted receipt of Changs payment of P15,164.48 on September
28, 1996. She also admitted having issued
an Auxiliary Receipt dated September 30, 1996 and having remitted the amount only
on January 13, 1997, after her immediate supervisor, Elenita L. Garcia (Garcia),
called her attention about the payment and its non-remittance. Beltran nevertheless
explained the circumstances which caused the delay of the turn-over of Changs
payment. She recounted that on the day
following her receipt of the money, she had a huge fight with her husband which
led to their separation; that on September 30, 1997, she reported at MERALCOs
Taguig branch where she worked until 8:30 p.m.; and, that subsequent marital
woes coupled with her worries for her ailing child distracted her into
forgetting Changs payment. Beltran
claimed that after Garcia approached her regarding the unremitted payment of
Chang, she immediately looked for the money in her drawer and right there and
then handed it over to Garcia together with the other pertinent documents. Beltran denied having personally used the
money.
Garcia, the Administrative
Supervisor of MERALCOs P15,164.48 to Beltran,
who in turn issued an Auxiliary Receipt dated September 30, 1996. It was also discovered
that the payment has not yet been remitted. This prompted her to inquire from Beltran on
January 7, 1997 about the supposed payment and immediately ordered the remittance
of the same. Beltran, however, failed to
do so on that day and even on the next day when she reported for work. Beltran subsequently went on leave of absence
on January 9 and 10, 1997. It was only
on
In a memorandum[11]
dated February 25, 1997, the investigator found Beltran guilty of
misappropriating and withholding Changs payment of P15,164.48 and
recommended her dismissal from service thus:
For wil[l]fully,
unlawfully and feloniously withholding and/or misappropriating for your
personal purposes or benefit electric bill payment of a Meralco customer, you
have thereby violated Section 7 par. (1) of the Company Code on Employee
Discipline which proscribes (m)isappropriating, or withholding, Company funds:
penalized therein with dismissal from the service. Because of this act of fraud
and dishonesty, you have wil[l]fully breached the trust and confidence reposed
in you by your employer.
x x x x
Accordingly, Management is constrained to dismiss
you for cause from the service and employ of the Company, as you are hereby so
dismissed effective 13 March 1997, with forfeiture of all rights and
privileges.[12] (Emphasis supplied.)
By virtue
thereof, Beltran was terminated effective March 13, 1997.[13]
Beltran filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal[14]
against MERALCO. She argued that she had
no intention to withhold company funds. Besides,
it was not her customary duty to collect and remit payments from customers. She claimed good faith, believing that her
acceptance of Changs payment is considered goodwill in favor of both MERALCO
and its customer. If at all, her only
violation was a simple delay in remitting the payment, which caused no
considerable harm to the company. Further,
her nine years of unblemished service to the company should be taken into
account such that the penalty of dismissal is not a commensurate penalty for
the unintentional act committed.
MERALCO, on the other hand,
maintained that under company policy, Beltran had the duty to remit payment for
electric bills by any customer on the day the same was received. It opined that if indeed the money was kept intact
inside the drawer and was not put to personal use, Beltran could have easily
turned over the same when Garcia instructed her to do so on January 7, 1997. However, Beltran failed to remit the money on
said date and even on the following day, January 8, when she reported for work. Worse, in the two succeeding days, she went
on leave. Thus, there was a clear sign of misappropriation of company funds,
considered a serious misconduct and punishable by dismissal from the service. Further, Beltrans reason for her failure to
perform such obligation on account of family problems deserves scant
consideration. MERALCO insisted that Beltrans act renders her unworthy of the
trust and confidence demanded of her position.
Ruling of the
Labor Arbiter
In a Decision[15]
dated June 16, 1999, the Labor Arbiter regarded the penalty of dismissal as not
commensurate to the degree of infraction committed as there was no adequate
proof of misappropriation on the part of Beltran. If there was delay in
Beltrans remittance of Changs payment, it was unintentional and same cannot
serve as sufficient basis to conclude that there was misappropriation of
company funds. In fact, Beltran did not
even attempt to deny possession of, or refuse to hand in, the money. The Labor
Arbiter thus gave compassionate consideration for the neglect to remit the
money promptly, stating that it is excusable for Beltran to commit lapses in
her work due to serious family difficulties. While the Labor Arbiter
commiserated with Beltrans circumstances and took into account her long and untainted
service, he nonetheless imposed disciplinary action in the form of forfeiture
of salary for her neglect in remitting the funds at once. The dispositive portion of his Decision reads
as follows:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the respondent
is hereby ordered to reinstate the complainant to her former position without
backwages. The forfeiture of backwages should be an equitable penalty for the
delay in the remittance of company funds.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Ruling of the
National Labor Relations Commission
Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed the
Labor Arbiters Decision and dismissed Beltrans complaint against MERALCO in
its Decision[17]
dated May 30, 2001. It found that Beltran
withheld company funds by failing to remit it for almost four months. It disregarded Beltrans assertion of family
problems as the same cannot be used as an excuse for committing a serious
misconduct in violation of the trust reposed on her as a Senior Branch
Clerk. The NLRC was convinced that Beltran
used the money for her personal needs since her act of taking a leave of
absence right after her confrontation with Garcia suggested that she needed time
to produce it. The NLRC thus ruled that
MERALCO validly dismissed Beltran from the service in the exercise of its inherent
right to discipline its employees.
In her Motion for Reconsideration,[18]
Beltran attributed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in basing
its conclusions on mere inferences and presumptions. Beltran argued that she
could not be guilty of withholding Changs payment, much more, misappropriating
it. She alleged that Garcia did not
order her to remit the money on January 7, 1997 or on the following day. Further, records reveal that she was on leave
from January 9 to 10 to attend to her child who was suffering from asthma. And since January 11 and 12 are Saturday and
Sunday, she deemed it appropriate to make the remittance on the following Monday,
January 13, 1997. Garcia, however,
refused to accept the money, saying that she already committed withholding of
company funds.
The NLRC denied Beltrans Motion for
Reconsideration.[19]
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
When Beltran brought the case to the
CA via a Petition for Certiorari,[20]
the NLRCs ruling was reversed. The CA
instead agreed with the findings of the Labor Arbiter that there were no
serious grounds to warrant Beltrans dismissal. The CA held that the penalty of
dismissal is harsh considering the infraction committed and Beltrans nine
years of unblemished service with MERALCO. It held that Beltrans mere failure
to remit the payment was unintentional and not attended by any ill motive and
that her excuse for the inadvertence was reasonable. As such, the CA affirmed
the ruling of the Labor Arbiter ordering MERALCO to reinstate Beltran to her former
position but with the forfeiture of her salary as an equitable penalty for her
negligence. Thus, in its Decision[21]
dated November 25, 2005, the petition was resolved as follows:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The x x x Decision dated May 30, 2001 and the
Resolution dated August 22, 2001 of the National Labor Relations Commission are
hereby REVERSED. ACCORDINGLY, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated
SO
ORDERED.[22]
In a Resolution[23]
dated July 19, 2006, MERALCOs Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA.
Hence, MERALCO filed this present
Petition for Review on Certiorari, raising the lone issue of whether
Issue
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF [BELTRAN] DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FINDING THAT SHE
IS GUILTY OF WITHHOLDING x x x COMPANY
FUNDS.[24]
Our Ruling
MERALCO insists that there was
convincing basis to dismiss Beltran from employment. While there was no concrete proof of
misappropriation, the fact that there was withholding of company funds remains
undisputed. This act of negligence by Beltran in the performance of her duties
has resulted to the loss of trust and confidence reposed on her,
notwithstanding her self-serving allegations of marital woes and family
difficulties, which were not even corroborated by any clear evidence.
We do not agree. On the contrary, we support the CAs finding
that there are no sufficient grounds to warrant Beltrans dismissal.
For loss of trust and confidence to
be a valid ground for dismissal, it must be based on a willful breach of trust
and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done
intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently. In addition, loss of
trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employers
arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion. [25]
In the case at bench, Beltran attributed
her delay in turning over Changs payment to her difficult family situation as she
and her husband were having marital problems and her child was suffering from
an illness. Admittedly, she was reminded
of Changs payment by her supervisor on January 7, 1997 but denied having been
ordered to remit the money on that day. She
then reasoned that her continued delay was caused by an inevitable need to take
a leave of absence for her to attend to the needs of her child who was
suffering from asthma.
It should be emphasized at this
point that the burden of proving the legality of an employees dismissal lies
with the employer.[26]
Unsubstantiated suspicions,
accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide legal justification
for dismissing employees.[27]
[M]ere conjectures cannot work to
deprive employees of their means of livelihood.[28]
To begin with, MERALCO cannot claim or conclude that Beltran misappropriated
the money based on mere suspicion. The NLRC thus erred in concluding that
Beltran made use of the money from the mere fact that she took a leave of
absence after having been reminded of the unremitted funds. And even if Beltran delayed handing over the
funds to the company, MERALCO still has the burden of proof to show clearly
that such act of negligence is sufficient to justify termination from
employment. Moreover, we find that
Beltrans delay does not clearly and convincingly establish a willful breach on
her part, that is, which is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely,
without any justifiable excuse. True, the reasons Beltran proffered for her
delay in remitting the cash payment are mere allegations without any concrete
proof. Nonetheless, we emphasize that as
the employer, the burden still lies on MERALCO to provide clear and convincing
facts upon which the alleged loss of confidence is to be made to rest.
Undoubtedly, Beltran was remiss in
her duties for her failure to immediately turn over Changs payment to the company.
Such negligence, however, is not sufficient to warrant separation from
employment. To justify removal from service, the negligence should be gross and
habitual.[29] Gross
negligence x x x is the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons
may be affected.[30]
Habitual neglect, on the other hand,
connotes repeated failure to perform ones duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances.[31]
No concrete evidence was presented by
MERALCO to show that Beltrans delay in remitting the funds was done
intentionally. Neither was it shown that same is willful, unlawful and felonious
contrary to MERALCOs finging as stated in the letter of termination it sent to
Beltran.[32] Surely, Beltrans single and isolated act of
negligence cannot justify her dismissal from service.
Moreover,
Beltrans simple negligence did not result in any loss. From the time she received the payment on
September 28, 1996 until January 7, 1997 when she was apprised by her
supervisor about Changs payment, no harm or damage to the company or to its
customers attributable to Beltrans negligence was alleged by MERALCO. Also, from the time she was apprised of the
non-remittance by her superior on January 7, 1997, until the turn-over of the
amount on January 13, 1997, no such harm or damage was ever claimed by MERALCO.
Under the
circumstances, MERALCOs sanction of dismissal will not be commensurate to
Beltrans inadvertence not only because there was no clear showing of bad faith
and malice but also in consideration of her untainted record of long and
dedicated service to MERALCO.[33]
In the similar case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company v. Berbano, Jr.,[34] we held that:
The magnitude of the infraction committed by an
employee must be weighed and equated with the penalty prescribed and must be
commensurate thereto, in view of the gravity of the penalty of dismissal or
termination from the service. The
employer should bear in mind that in termination cases, what is at stake is not
simply the employees job or position but [her] very livelihood.
Where
a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by an
employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal
from employment.[35]
Hence, we find no reversible error or
any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in ordering Beltrans
reinstatement without backwages. The
forfeiture of her salary is an equitable punishment for the simple negligence
committed.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED. The Court of Appeals
Decision dated November 25, 2005 and Resolution dated July 19, 2006 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 67960 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-21.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 122-132; penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Rosmari D. Carandang.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] See Notice of Investigation dated January 20, 1997, id. at 47.
[9]
[10] See Garcias Malayang Salaysay given on February 18, 1997, id. at 44-46.
[11]
[12] See Letter of Termination dated March 13,
1997, rollo, p. 68.
[13]
[14] CA rollo, p. 30.
[15] Supra note 4.
[16] CA rollo, p. 73.
[17] Supra note 3.
[18] CA rollo, pp. 86-92.
[19]
[20]
[21] Supra note 2.
[22] CA rollo, p. 131.
[23] Supra note 5.
[24] Rollo,
p. 16.
[25] Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc. v. Diamse, 524 Phil. 549, 556 (2006).
[26] Abel v. Philex Mining Corporation, G.R.
No. 178976,
[27]
[28] Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life
Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 167622,
[29] Labor Code, Article 282(b).
[30] Sanchez v. Republic, G.R. No. 172885,
[31] Abel
v. Philex Mining Corporation, supra
note 26 at 696-697.
[32] Supra note 12.
[33] Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Tolentino, 482 Phil. 34, 43 (2004).
[34] G.R. No. 165199, November 27, 2009, 606 SCRA 81, 98.
[35] Solvic Industrial Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 357 Phil. 430, 437-438 (1998).