Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50627:gr-154503-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:50:42+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 154503 - UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB and VIVIAN M. APDUHAN, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AMALIA P. KAWADA, Respondents.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club (Uniwide) and Vivian M. Apduhan (Apduhan) seeking to annul the Decision1 dated November 23, 2001 and the Resolution2 dated July 23, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 64581.
Amalia P. Kawada (private respondent) started her employment with Uniwide sometime in 1981 as a saleslady. Over the years, private respondent worked herself within Uniwide's corporate ladder until she attained the rank of Full Assistant Store Manager with a monthly compensation of P13,000.00 in 1995.
Sometime in 1998, Uniwide received reports from the other employees regarding some problems in the departments managed by the private respondent.4 Thus, on March 15, 1998, Uniwide, through Store Manager Apduhan, issued a Memorandum addressed to the private respondent summarizing the various reported incidents signifying unsatisfactory performance on the latter's part which include the commingling of good and damaged items, sale of a voluminous quantity of damaged toys and ready-to-wear items at unreasonable prices, and failure to submit inventory reports. Uniwide asked private respondent for concrete plans on how she can effectively perform her job.5 In a letter6 dated March 23, 1998, private respondent answered all the allegations contained in the March 15, 1998 Memorandum.
Unsatisfied, Apduhan sent another Memorandum7 dated March 30, 1998 to private respondent where Apduhan claimed that the answers given by the private respondent in her March 23, 1998 letter were all hypothetical and did not answer directly the allegations attributed to her.8 Apduhan elaborated the incidents contained in the March 15, 1998 Memorandum.
On June 30, 1998, Apduhan sent another Memorandum9 seeking from the private respondent an explanation regarding the incidents reported by Uniwide employees and security personnel for alleged irregularities committed by the private respondent such as allowing the entry of unauthorized persons inside a restricted area during non-office hours, falsification of or inducing another employee to falsify personnel or company records, sleeping and allowing a non-employee to sleep inside the private office, unauthorized search and bringing out of company records, purchase of damaged home furnishing items without the approval from superior, taking advantage of buying damaged items in large quantity, alteration of approval slips for the purchase of damaged items and abandonment of work.10 In a letter11 dated July 9, 1998, private respondent answered the allegations made against her.
Counsel for private respondent sent a letter28 dated August 8, 1998 to Apduhan claiming that the August 2, 1998 Memorandum was a mere afterthought, in an attempt to justify private respondent's dismissal; and that on August 3, 1998, private respondent had already filed charges against Uniwide and Apduhan (petitioners).
Towards these evidence, Ms. A. Kawada only raised questions as to the propriety of the entries on the logbook, but the offense itself was not even denied categorically by the employee concerned. Hence, the fact remains that the employee concerned indeed allowed the entries of Mr. Ed Kawada on different occasions. The Security personnel when asked why they did not report those incidents immediately, answered: They hesitated to report them because they were afraid as the employee concerned is a manager, whom they thought knows better then them.
2. Falsification of or Inducing another employee to falsify personnel or company records.
In her answer, Ms. A. Kawada again only questioned the propriety of the entries on the logbook, but there were clear indications that the violation was indeed committed as shown by the abovestated pieces of evidence.
The testimonies by the witnesses' are very explicit of what really transpired, specifically security guard Dennis Venancio, who just performs his duty of reporting any unusual incident that occurred within his jurisdiction. The fact that they failed to report it at an earlier time, in understandable, since they were hesitant, that the manager might get back at them, or simply because of their respect for Ms. A. Kawada, as a Manager.
3. Sleeping during overnight work last August 17, 1997.
Based on the records and reports submitted, there is no doubt that the concerned employee committed such an offense. The witnesses stated their testimonies only in accordance with what they have seen and witnessed during those stated periods.
4. Unauthorized Search, Bringing Out and taking of Company Records, March 18, 1998 and March 20, 1998.
It is established that 15 approval slips were taken by the employee concerned, however, only 11 approval slips were surrendered or returned.
5. Purchases of Dented or Sub-standard items of Home Furnishing without approval from authorized Supervisor, February 3, 1998.
Towards this accusation subject employee countered that she only asked Ms. Melanie Laag why she was not able to sign said approval slip but not for the purpose of letting her sign it. By this, it only means that indeed the said approval slip does not contain the necessary approval prior to the purchase. This could be related to the other charge against the subject employee on unauthorized search and bringing out of company records, for based on the circumstances there was such a search conducted to look for and retrieve approval slips of subject employee, as there are really approval slips of subject employee which does not bear the necessary approval. The search must have been probably made to cover up and/or suppress such evidence against her.
6. Altering Approval slips dated January 17, 1998.
a) #1 original quantity - 7 pieces changed to 2 pieces - amount was altered from Php14.00 to Php10.00.
b) #2 erasures on the number of quantity whether 15, 5 or 7 pieces.
Towards this accusation Ms. A. Kawada submitted no plausible explanation, indicating that said employee concerned might have really committed the acts complained of.
Violation of Company Rules on the proper procedure in selling of dented merchandise.
7. Making Reservations of Dented Items - January to February 1998.
There was no direct explanation submitted by Ms. A. Kawada on this. Thus, it becomes clear that Ms. Kawada had violated the company rule on No Reservation.
8. Conduct unbecoming of a manager in cornering and/or bringing large quantity of damaged items (toys, furniture, RTW, appliances and Home Furnishing items), causing demoralization among the store crew and tainting management's image to its personnel.
The report that were submitted by the witnesses proved that Ms. Kawada made those purchases of dented or sub-standard items that were under her assigned area, without regard for the rest of the employees who wanted to buy also, thus, using and taking advantage of her position, to the detriment of the other employees and painting a bad image of the company's managers.
9. Abandonment of work or absence for five (5) consecutive days without prior notice from any authorized company officer or higher authority.
Despite notice for subject employee to report to work or else be considered as having abandoned her job, it appears that subject employee continuously failed to report for work without any explanation.
Based on all the foregoing it seems clear and convincing, that you have indeed committed the violations imputed on you. The aforementioned violations per se deserves termination as a penalty, not to mention that they also constitute willful breach of the trust reposed on you as a manager. Thus, we have no other alternative but to terminate your service with the Company, effective September 1, 1998, on the grounds of violations of Company Rules, Abandonment of Work and loss of trust and confidence.
You are hereby directed to surrender all other documents and papers pertaining to your job, which you may have acquired and have come into your possession as a result of your employment with the company.
On March 9, 1999 the LA32 dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.33 Private respondent appealed the LA's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Attorney's fees computed at ten percent (10%) of the total award.
Also, the NLRC observed that private respondent was not afforded due process by petitioners because the former was not given an opportunity to a fair hearing in that the investigation was conducted after private respondent had been constructively dismissed; and that there was no point for private respondent to still attend the investigation set on August 12, 1998 after her constructive dismissal on July 31, 1998 and after she had already filed her complaint.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioners appealed the NLRC Decision to the CA. In the assailed Decision37 dated November 23, 2001, the CA affirmed in toto the NLRC Decision.
The present case is clouded by conflict of factual perceptions. Consequently, the Court is constrained to review the factual findings of the CA which contravene the findings of facts of the LA.
The petition is meritorious. After a thorough examination of the conflicting positions of the parties, the Court finds the records bereft of evidence to substantiate the conclusions of the NLRC and the CA that private respondent was constructively dismissed from employment.
The sending of several memoranda addressed to a managerial or supervisory employee concerning various violations of company rules and regulations, committed on different occasions, are not unusual. The alleged February to June 1998 series of memoranda given by petitioners to private respondent asking the latter to explain the alleged irregular acts should not be construed as a form of harassment but merely an exercise of management's prerogative to discipline its employees.
The right to impose disciplinary sanctions upon an employee for just and valid cause, as well as the authority to determine the existence of said cause in accordance with the norms of due process, pertains in the first place to the employer.52 Precisely, petitioners gave private respondent successive memoranda so as to give the latter an opportunity to controvert the charges against her. Clearly, the memoranda are not forms of harassment, but petitioners' compliance with the requirements of due process.
The July 31, 1998 confrontation where Apduhan allegedly shouted at private respondent which caused the latter's hypertension to recur and eventually caused her to collapse cannot by itself support a finding of constructive dismissal by the NLRC and the CA. Even if true, the act of Apduhan in shouting at private respondent was an isolated outburst on the part of Apduhan that did not show a clear discrimination or insensibility that would render the working condition of private respondent unbearable.
Private respondent mistakenly believed that the successive memoranda sent to her from March 1998 to June 1998 constituted discrimination, insensibility or disdain which was tantamount to constructive dismissal. Thus, private respondent filed a case for constructive dismissal against petitioners and consequently stopped reporting for work.
The Court finds that petitioners were not able to establish that private respondent deliberately refused to continue her employment without justifiable reason. To repeat, the Court will not make a drastic conclusion that private respondent chose to abandon her work on the basis of her mistaken belief that she had been constructively dismissed by Uniwide.
Thus, with respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient.63 But, as regards a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Hence, in the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.64 (Emphasis supplied).
The irregularities and offenses committed by private respondent, corroborated by the various pieces of evidence supporting such charges, i.e. records, reports and testimonies of Uniwide employees,67 in the mind of the Court, constitute substantial evidence that private respondent is in fact responsible for the alleged charges.
To disprove the charges against her, private respondent presented a letter68 dated July 29, 1998 from a former Uniwide employee, Luisa Astrologo (Astrologo), stating that the latter was urged by her manager, a certain Ralph Galang, to testify against private respondent for improper behavior concerning the "dented product for which private respondent is abusing her power of reserving and picking the best product she can afford to dispatch."69 The letter, however, does not state that the charges Astrologo imputed to private respondent were false. The letter merely states that Astrologo "does not see anything wrong about the matter."70 Moreover, in her Memorandum,71 filed with the Court, private respondent merely cited inconsistencies in the reports regarding the charges imputed to her without denying the said allegations.
It is true that private respondent had risen from the ranks, from being a saleslady in 1981 to a Full Assistant Store Manager in 1995. She worked for Uniwide for almost 17 years with a clean bill of record. However, these facts are not sufficient to overcome the findings of petitioners that the private respondent is guilty of the charges imputed to her.
Finally, the NLRC and the CA erred in finding that private respondent was denied due process. Private respondent claims that she lost the opportunity to be heard when she was constructively dismissed on July 31, 1998,72 and that it was only after she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC on August 3, 1998 that petitioners notified the private respondent of the investigation which will be conducted on August 12, 1998 concerning her alleged offenses. The Memorandum dated August 2, 199873 completely demolishes such claims. It shows on its face that private respondent received the Memorandum on August 2, 1998, a day before she filed the complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners; and that private respondent was notified that the hearing was scheduled on August 12, 1998 and explicitly warned her that her failure to appear thereat shall mean a waiver to be heard, and the case shall then be submitted for decision based on available papers and evidence.
In reality, private respondent, as found earlier was not terminated on July 31, 1998. There was no constructive dismissal. Again, the successive memoranda presented by private respondent and the alleged July 31, 1998 shouting incident are not sufficient to establish her claim of harassment.
However, as to the September 1, 1998 Memorandum where the private complainant was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence, the Court finds the notice of the scheduled August 12, 1998 hearing sufficient compliance with the due process requirement.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side.74 It is not the denial of the right to be heard but denial of the opportunity to be heard that constitutes violation of due process of law.75 In the instant case, private respondent was again notified of the August 12, 1998 hearing through a letter76 dated August 8, 1998 which was received by private respondent herself.77 Clearly, private respondent was given an opportunity to be heard. However, private respondent chose not to attend the scheduled hearing because of her mistaken belief that she had already been constructively dismissed.
We cannot, with due respect, subscribe to complainant's [herein private respondent] position for it simply lacks evidence and that all that there is to it is seemingly a general allegation. We examined the record and as we have done it we find no acts or incidents constituting complainant's alleged "constructive dismissal". On the contrary, what is generally existing thereat is that complainant was dismissed by the respondents [Uniwide and Apduhan] for an array of violations consisting of, but not limited to the following: allowing entry of unauthorized personnel inside a company restricted area; falsification of or inducing another employee to falsify personnel or company records; sleeping during overnight work; unauthorized search and bringing out of company records; unauthorized purchase of damaged items; alteration of approval slips for the purchase of damaged items; unduly reserving and buying of damaged items; and abandonment of work.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 23, 2001 and Resolution dated July 23, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64581 together with the Decision dated December 27, 2000 of the National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of private respondent Amalia P. Kawada is DISMISSED.
1 Penned by Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador; rollo, pp. 39-46.
32 Labor Arbiter Donato G. Quinto, Jr.
40 Lorenzo v. People, G.R. No. 152335, December 19, 2005, 478 SCRA 462, 469; Ilao-Quianay v. Mapile, G.R. No. 154087, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 246, 253.
41 Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158922, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 358, 364, citing Gabriel v. Spouses Mabanta, 447 Phil. 717, 725 (2003).
42 Dusit Hotel Nikko v. National Union of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN)-Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter, G.R. No. 160391, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 374.
44 Chiang Kai Shek College v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152988, August 24, 2004, 437 SCRA 171, 177; Globe Telecom, Inc. v. Florendo-Flores, 438 Phil. 757, 766 (2002); Blue Dairy Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 373 Phil. 179, 186 (1999).
45 Aguilar v. Burger Machine Holdings Corporation, G.R. No. 172062, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 266, 273.
50 Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank), G.R. No. 169570, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 309, 323.
51 Go v. Court of Appeals, supra note 41, at 366.
52 Foster Parents Plan International/Bicol v. Demetriou, G.R. No. L-74077, July 7, 1986, 142 SCRA 505, 509.
53 Lagon v. Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc., 402 Phil. 404, 421-422 (2001).
54 Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank, supra note 50, at 323, citing Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 210, 230.
55 Northwest Tourism Corp. v. Court of Appeals, Former Special Third Division, G.R. No. 150591, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 298, 309-310.
56 Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation v. Dapiton, 377 Phil. 951, 960 (1999).
57 G.R. No. 96439, January 27, 1992, 205 SCRA 492.
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative. x x x"
61 Caoile v. National Labor Relations Commission, 359 Phil. 399, 405 (1998).
63 Id. at 406, citing Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation v. Nuwhrain (Ramada Chapter), G.R. No. L-57268, March 25, 1988, 159 SCRA 212.
64 Id. at 406, citing Sajonas v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 49286, March 15, 1990, 183 SCRA 182; Reyes v. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. 48705, February 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 134.
74 Eastern Overseas Employment Center, Inc. v. Bea, G.R. No. 143023, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 384, 392, citing NFD International Manning Agents v. National Labor Relations Commission, 348 Phil. 264 (1998).
80 Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank) supra note 50, at 326-327, citing Cebu Metal Corporation v. Salilling, G.R. No. 154463, September 5, 2006, 501 SCRA 61.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.