Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=33833:g-r-no-95080-november-10,-1993-isetann-department-store,-inc-v-national-labor-relations-commission,-2nd-division,-et-al&amp;catid=1308&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:18:25+00:00

Document:
ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., Petitioner, v. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION and ROSITA BAUTISTA, Respondents.
Batino, Angala, Salud & Fabia Law Offices for Petitioner.
Emmanuel G. Fule for Private Respondent.
We agree with this assessment.
The switch in figures was discovered sometime in July, 1987 when the shoes were transferred to petitioner’s Cubao branch. The purchase order was cancelled and a new check for the correct amount of P53,838.00 was prepared and paid to Yolanda Chan, who continued to supply shoes to petitioner until September, 1987. When confronted with the error by Alice Luro, Buyer, and Mr. K. C. Tan, Merchandiser, Mangoba admitted her mistake in sorting out the shoes and in preparing the purchase order.
Rule XIV — Sec. 2.	Bribery or offering or accepting anything of value in exchange for a job. work, assignment, work location, or favorable condition or employment.
Rule XIV — Sec. 32.	Engaging or conniving in anomalous transactions.
Rule XVIII — Sec. 9.	Using Company time, or materials or equipment to do unauthorized work within or without the Company premises for personal gain.
Bautista contested her dismissal through a complaint filed before the NLRC NCR Arbitration Branch. No amicable settlement having been reached, hearing on the merits ensued.
On July 31, 1989, Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati rendered judgment "ordering the respondent (Isetann) to reinstate the complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay her full backwages and other benefits from the time she was illegally dismissed until actual reinstatement plus ten (10) percent of the total award as Attorney’s fees payable to counsel." 6 The Labor Arbiter ruled that no fraud or anomaly attended the accomplishment of the purchase order of Chan’s June 2, 1987 shoe delivery but only an error in its preparation as admitted by Mangoba when first confronted therewith. No credence was given to the testimonies of Capua and Mangoba that they were instructed by private respondent to mix the shoes to avoid loss on the part of chan because nobody would "agree to outrightly transact or enter into a losing proposition or business" and Chan herself testified that she would already be getting a marginal profit from the correct price of the shoes. Moreover, Arbiter Pati noted that petitioner’s own version that the anomaly was discovered in July, 1987 was irreconcilable with the fact that Chan was paid the correct amount as early as June, 1987 and she was still allowed to supply shoes to petitioner until September 1987. In fine, the Labor Arbiter concluded that petitioner Isetann had failed to substantiate the charges imputed to private respondent and that there was no basis for her dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
In the petition at bar, petitioner assails the affirmance by the NLRC of the Labor Arbiter’s decision as constituting grave abuse of discretion because the Arbiter not only failed to accord due weight to petitioner’s testimonial and documentary evidence, but more importantly, misapprehended the same, thereby drawing conclusions that were entirely incongruent and fallacious.
In the case at bar, Bautista’s involvement in the anomaly complained of was sufficiently shown by the corroborating testimonies of Capua and Mangoba. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC gravely abused their discretion in rejecting said testimonies, acting as they did under gross misapprehension of facts. No contradiction arises from the fact of payment on June 29, 1987 and petitioner’s witnesses’ statement that the anomaly was discovered in July or November of the same year. What was discovered in July was only the switch of figures in the purchase order then ascribed to nothing more than inattention or carelessness. It was not until November, when Mangoba executed her written statement, that respondent Bautista’s hand in said interchanging was discovered. Only then when what appeared to be a mere error in the preparation of the purchase order was revealed to be a aborted fraudulent scheme involving private Respondent. Thus, it was likewise not illogical that Chan continued to supply shoes to petitioner until September.
Another reason given by the Labor Arbiter for rejecting the testimonies of Capua and Mangoba is that nobody would "agree to outrightly transact or enter into a losing proposition or business." 8 This exemplifies what petitioner terms an incongruous and fallacious conclusion. Whether or not Chan really stood to lose in the transaction if no switch in figures was made is immaterial. What matter is not the truth or falsity of that statement, but rather that this was the reason given by private respondent in urging and convincing Capua to fraudulently mix the "Valencia" with deerskin shoes.
Q	Madam witness, in your statement you stated therein and I quote the last paragraph.’Sana po ay maunawaan po ninyo ang aking katayuan sa hindi ko po pagtatapat kaagad.’ What do you mean by the term ‘katayuan’?
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the NLRC Second Division, and decision of the Labor Arbiter are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and private petitioner’s complaint for illegal termination of employment DISMISSED.
Padilla, Regalado, Nocon and Puno, JJ., concur.
1.	Composed of Presiding Commissioner Edna Bonto Perez, Commissioners Rustico L. Diokno (Ponente) and Domingo H. Zapata.
2.	Petition, p. 8, Rollo, p. 9.
3.	Annex "B", Petition, Rollo, pp. 36-42.
4.	Annex "C", Petition, Rollo, pp. 43-46.
5.	Annex "F", Petition, Rollo, p. 53.
6.	Annex "I", Petition, Rollo, pp. 77-78.
7.	Top Form Mfg. Co. Inc. v. NLRC, G. R. No. 6655706, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 313; citing Valladolid v. Inciong, 121 SCRA 205 ; DOLE Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 123 SCRA 673 ; Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 197 SCRA 491 ; Baguio Country Club Corporation v. NLRC and GENOVE, G. R. No. 102397, September 4, 1992.
8.	p. 6, Labor Arbiter’s Decision, Annex "I", Petition, p. 76, Rollo.
9.	TSN, p. 32, April 25, 1988; Italics supplied.
10.	page 9, NLRC Resolution, Annex "A", Petition, p. 35, Rollo.

References: v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.