HERNANDO, J.:
A report has been provided by Fraud Risk Management in relation to their findings that you have facilitated an invalid credit adjustment to the account of Mr. Leon Ebitner with mobile number 09178798805 amounting to Php998.99 using your own userID.In response, respondent submitted on March 19, 2015 her written explanation, admitting that she was the one who facilitated the credit adjustment on October 24, 2014, using her own userID;[8] however, respondent claimed that she could no longer remember the circumstances surrounding the transaction and why she did it. Thus, she requested that she be allowed to check the transaction records hoping to remember why she made the adjustment. Respondent also maintained that had the transaction been invalid, she would have received an e-mail from the management within one month after the date of the transaction, as per company policy. Lastly, respondent expressed willingness to reimburse the amount involved in case the transaction was proved invalid.[9]
In this regard, you are hereby directed to explain in writing within five (5) days from receipt of this memo why no disciplinary action should be given to you on your alleged violation on our Code of Conduct (COC) specifically on Non-Observance of SOP, Fraud against the Company and for Serious Misconduct when you have facilitated the credit adjustment that was deemed invalid, to which the said account belonged to a person connected to you.
Failure on your part to submit your explanation shall waive your right to be heard, and management shall decide on the case based on the documents it has.
In the meantime, you are hereby placed under PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION effective upon receipt of this memo. You are also directed to turn-over your tools of work for the duration of the preventive suspension.
For your strict compliance.[7]
WHEREFORE, Globe Telecom is hereby ordered to reinstate Kay Abastillas Ebitner to her former position, immediately upon receipt of this Decision. The forfeiture of backwages should be an equitable penalty for her misdeed of making a credit adjustment, without following the standard operating procedure.Curiously however, the arbiter did not categorically declare respondent to have been illegally dismissed.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of factual or legal basis.
SO ORDERED.[17]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant's appeal is PARTLY GRANTED and respondent's appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August 28, 2015, is hereby MODIFIED to the extent that Globe Telecom is DIRECTED to pay to complainant her full backwages from the date of her illegal dismissal, or from April 30, 2015 up to the date of her actual reinstatement, computed as follows:Surprisingly however, in a Resolution[21] dated February 19, 2016, the NLRC granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration and reversed its earlier decision by declaring petitioner not guilty of illegal dismissal. Thus, it deleted all the monetary awards it earlier granted to respondent.[22]
Backwages (tentative): Basic Pay 04/30/15 - 11/16/15 = 6.53 mos. P25,000.00 x 6.53 = P163,250.00 13th Month Pay P163,250.00/12 = 13,604.17 SILP 04/30/15 - 11/16/15 = 6.53 mos. P25,000.00 / 26 days = P961.54 P961.54 x 5/12 x 6.53 = 2,616.20 TOTAL P179,470.37
All other claims are DENIED for lack of factual or legal basis.
SO ORDERED.[20]
ACCORDINGLY, the Resolution dated February 19, 2016 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is GRANTED separation pay of one month salary for every year of service, less one month salary as penalty for petitioner's infraction. An interest of 6% per annum is imposed on this money award from finality of this decision until full payment thereof. Petitioner is further required to REIMBURSE Globe Telecom Inc. the amount of Php998.99 with 6% interest from October 24, 2014 until the same is fully paid.In its ruling, the CA affirmed the finding of the NLRC that there was just cause for respondent's dismissal. The appellate court, however, found the penalty of dismissal too harsh, considering that petitioner has been working with respondent for already 10 years at the time of the incident, with an unblemished record. Thus, it found the grant of separation pay proper. Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration[25] was likewise denied in a Resolution[26] dated October 1, 2018.
SO ORDERED. [24]
There is now no dispute that the CA can make a determination whether the factual findings by the NLRC or the Labor Arbiter were based on the evidence and in accord with the pertinent laws and jurisprudence.Moreover, in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] it was declared:
The significance of this clarification is that whenever the decision of the CA in a labor case is appealed by a petition for review on certiorari, the Court can competently delve into the propriety of the factual review not only by the CA but also by the NLRC. Such ability is still in pursuance to the exercise of our review jurisdiction over administrative findings of fact that we have discoursed on in several rulings, including Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, where we have pointed out:While administrative findings of fact are accorded great respect, and even finality when supported by substantial evidence, nevertheless, when it can be shown that administrative bodies grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, this Court has not hesitated to reverse their factual findings. Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness.[31] (Citations omitted)
It is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded not only respect but even finality if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. This is especially so when such findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, if the factual findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are conflicting, as in this case, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned findings.[33] (Emphasis supplied)Thus, guided by the foregoing, and considering that the issue on the legality of respondent's dismissal is paramount, We shall proceed to rule on the same.
To summarize, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.[35]Meanwhile, fraud or dishonesty as a ground for dismissal is defined as the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."[36]
a. | Petitioner failed to prove serious misconduct on the part of respondent |
Significantly, however, neither party actually presented proof of their conflicting claims. On one hand, complainant did not present the notation that she claimed to have made to justify her granting the credit adjustment in favor of her father's account. On the other hand, respondents did not also present any evidence, such as transaction documents or records, or even screenshots of the company database, to show that the complainant did not provide any justification, by way of a notation, for the credit adjustment. Respondents did not even indicate the amount by which they were allegedly defrauded. Both parties merely relied on their respective sworn allegations in their pleadings.[37]
b. | Petitioner failed to prove fraud committed by respondent |
Article 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:Although written together, fraud is actually a separate and distinct ground for dismissal from the other ground provided which is loss of trust and confidence.[38] Further, although fraud necessarily results in loss of trust and confidence, the reverse is not always true; i.e., loss of trust and confidence does not always stem from fraud. Thus, for purposes of the present case, We shall limit the discussion on fraud, as alleged by petitioner.
x x x x
c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him [or her] by his [or her] employer or duly authorized representative;
The offense committed by the respondent herein is a serious misconduct that reflects on her moral character. By adjusting the bill of her father from P998.99 to zero thereby relieving her father from paying his bill, the respondent committed an act of dishonesty. x x x[39]Petitioner's contentions are highly speculative. First, it erroneously assumes that respondent has already done the misdeed in the past and second, it falsely speculates that all of its 5,000 employees are predisposed to unduly adjust the bills of their friends and relatives. It thus concludes that because of these circumstances, as a measure of self-preservation, the dismissal of respondent was warranted. It does not take much to see that petitioner's position is shallow at best. While petitioner is perfectly free to take precautionary measures to protect its interests, it certainly cannot do so at the expense of its employees.
x x x x
It should be realized that it is not easy to catch this [sic] kind of offenders. The petitioner should not be expected to wait for the respondent herein to commit the same offense for the second time. The herein petitioner trusts all of its employees. It does not, and cannot, watch the acts of every employee. Offenses like this are discovered only through random checks. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the respondent herein has done the same thing in the past. That is precisely the reason why a strict norm of discipline is enforced against this [sic] kind of offenders. The seriousness of the offense cannot, therefore, be trivialized. One could just imagine the far-reaching consequences if more than 5,000 employees of the petitioner company would every now and then adjust the bills of their relatives and friends.[40]