533 Phil. 292
PUNO, J.:
TO : LOIDA MALABAGO FROM : AREA MANAGER / OFFICE OF THE AVP SUBJECT : SUSPENSION
It was noted that you have done a very grievous offense by releasing stocks without proper documentation. I think you are fully aware that disciplinary action of this offense is DISMISSAL.
You are hereby suspended for fifteen (15) days effective today, November 24, 1999 to December 8, 1999 without pay.
Further evaluation of this case shall be done during your suspension period.
Please report directly to the undersigned, your Area Manager, after expiration of your suspension period which will be on December 9, 1999 for further review and discussion.
(sgd) MA. NIMFA BUENAFE Noted by
AREA MANAGER (sgd) ISABEL R. BUNAC
Eastern Visayas - Leyte Asst. Vice-Presiden
On November 29, 1999, petitioner received another memorandum from the Area Manager advising her to report to the Cebu Main Office on December 3, 1999 in connection with the ongoing investigation of her case.[5]
Petitioner appeared before a panel of investigators at the company's main office on December 3, 1999. The investigators apprised petitioner of the charges against her and asked her to explain her side. Petitioner reiterated her position in her letter dated November 23, 1999.[6]
On December 7, 1999, Assistant Vice President Isabel Bunac issued a memorandum[7] informing petitioner that private respondent has approved the recommendation of the investigating committee for her dismissal due to the following offenses:
- Releasing of stocks without proper documentation;
- Paying a portion of the stocks taken after attention was called using the cost price only and not the company's selling price;
- Overpricing of some items to offset the items not being issued with cash slip or sales invoice.
In the instant case, the cause of petitioner's dismissal was the violation of company policy on releasing stocks without any cash slip or charge slip. While petitioner was found to have violated the said offense, the same however, does not reflect on her moral character. The Court accords due consideration to petitioner's honesty in informing the branch clerks of the items she took out and her further act of paying the value of the items. However and to reiterate, her honesty does not absolve her from any liability she may have incurred for violating a known company policy. The Court also considers [the] fact that petitioner's record of employment with private respondent for more than five (5) years is entirely unblemished. Hence, the consequent award of separation pay.Thus, we find that the Court of Appeals did not err in rendering its assailed decision.