Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50145:gr-167637-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:18:24+00:00

Document:
METRO EYE SECURITY, INC., Petitioner, v. JULIE V. SALSONA, Respondent.
Submitted for decision is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolution1 dated 15 December 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 87537 of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition of Metro Eye Security, Inc. for having been filed beyond the reglementary period and the Resolution2 dated 21 March 2005 of the same court denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
On 13 July 2000, petitioner sent another memorandum to Salsona requiring him to respond to a complaint for tampering with payroll documents and the pilferage of construction materials.5 Salsona also responded to the second memorandum. On 10 August 2000, petitioner, through its Human Resources Supervisor Filomeno Fabunan, Jr., issued a third memorandum to Salsona finding him guilty of tampering with payroll documents and dismissing him based on loss of confidence.6 From this, Salsona filed a complaint7 for illegal dismissal against petitioner with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Petitioner elevated its case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.12 In a Resolution dated 15 December 2004, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its Petition. The Motion was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 21 March 2005.
According to the petitioner, the actual date of its receipt of the 24 August 2004 NLRC Resolution is 15 September 2004 and not 13 September 2004 as erroneously stamped on its copy by the secretary of petitioner's counsel. It has 60 days to file the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, with the Court of Appeals. He therefore had until 14 November 2004 to file the Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Petitioner counted the date of filing of its petition based on its actual date of receipt of the assailed Resolution, 15 September 2004. Petitioner then filed its Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on 16 November 2004, which was still within the reglementary period for filing. To further prove its claim, petitioner presented a Certification from the Quezon City Central Post Office17 that it received the 24 August 2004 resolution on 15 September 2004.
Hence, we now proceed to resolve the issue of whether or not Salsona was validly dismissed.
Petitioner insists that there was substantial evidence to engender a well-founded belief that there was gross dishonesty on the part of Salsona. The investigation conducted by the panel is sufficient evidence to prove that he was guilty of gross dishonesty in tampering payroll documents. Atty. Yvonne Gaddi Festejo, who was then a member of the panel who investigated Salsona, executed an Affidavit to the effect that she looked into the "guard's logbook" and did not find Salsona's name therein. In the same Affidavit, Atty. Festejo likewise indicated that during the hearing, she interviewed some of the guards and found out that Salsona was not seen on 26 April 2000 in the premises of AMALAND. This, petitioner insists, constitutes substantial evidence of Salsona's gross dishonesty.
We now proceed to determine whether the dismissal of Salsona surpasses the requirement of substantial due process.
(2) Salsona is guilty of pilferage of construction materials stored at his place of assignment.
It is true that loss of trust and confidence can constitute a just and valid cause for an employee's dismissal. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides the basis for the right of an employer to dismiss an employee based on loss of trust and confidence.
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representive.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss. It is sufficient that there be some basis for the same, or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the latter's participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position.
In the present case, the petitioner did not base Salsona's dismissal on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant separation from work.
On the charge that Salsona inserted his name in the Daily Attendance Report when in truth he was not present at his place of assignment on that date, the Court agrees in the finding of the Labor Arbiter that the Head Guard assigned to the AMALand Detachment checked and signed Salsona's daily time records (DTRs). As correctly maintained by Salsona, the signature of the Head Guard on his DTR is adequate proof that the entries therein are in order and that he indeed rendered work on that date.
In order to rebut the veracity of the entries in the DTR, petitioner contends that the guard's logbook did not contain the name of Salsona on 26 April 2000. It must be emphasized however that the said key piece of evidence was not presented by the petitioner and was not included in the records of this case. Petitioner's argument therefore is clearly uncorroborated and amounts to nothing more than a bare allegation.
On this score, the charge of gross dishonesty against Salsona consisting in the deliberate insertion of his name in the DTR rests on feeble grounds.
We, likewise, find the charge of pilferage of construction materials to be unfounded. It must be emphasized that the Investigation Report36 dated 26 July 2000 submitted by petitioner stated that "the investigating committee has initiated an inventory of all materials to determine if there was a pilferage or not." The records of this case, however, are bereft of any indication as regards the outcome of said investigation. It is not shown whether the inventory indeed took place or if the result thereof was disclosed. The significance of the outcome of said inventory cannot be over-stressed as it would establish definitively the basis for Salsona's dismissal on the ground of pilferage of construction materials. This further strengthens the conclusion that the charge of pilferage is not substantiated.
We next proceed to determine whether the dismissal of Salsona complied with the requirements of procedural due process.
Noticeably, after going over the records of this case, this Court observes that Salsona received a letter dated 11 July 2000 informing him of a complaint for allegedly working for a competitor as intelligence/investigation officer and required him to submit a written statement and explanation. He immediately complied with the said Memorandum and submitted his explanation the next day. Salsona again received another letter from the petitioner on 13 July 2000 informing him that a Complaint for "alleged gross dishonesty manifested by his act of tampering payroll documents and involvement in the pilferage of construction materials" was filed against him. The second Memorandum required respondent to report to the petitioner's Office of the Senior Manager for Human Resources the next day or on 14 July 2000. Less than a month later, Salsona received a notice of termination. While it is true that Salsona was afforded the opportunity to submit his written explanation on the first charge of deliberately inserting his name in the DTR submitted to the petitioner, it is likewise equally true that he did not expressly acknowledge that he committed any offense. In fact, he denied the charges against him.
Though it may seem that the interregnum between the date of the notice charging Salsona with tampering with the DTR and pilferage and the date of the Notice of his termination ostensibly provided him enough time to defend himself, still, there was no hearing conducted and hence no opportunity for Salsona to defend himself.
All told, Salsona's dismissal did not comply with the substantive and procedural aspects of due process thus tainting the dismissal with invalidity. We, then, find no reason to depart from the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Salsona was illegally dismissed.
Wherefore, premises considered, the instant Petition is partially GRANTED in the sense that the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 15 December 2004 dismissing the petition for having been filed out of time and the resolution of the same court dated 21 March 2005, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 87537, are SET ASIDE. While we set aside these Resolutions, in consideration of public interest and the speedy administration of justice and the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court, however, resolves to proceed to decide this case on the merits instead of remanding the same to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. We find that the Decision of the NLRC dated 30 April 2004 and its Resolution dated 24 August 2004 affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 31 March 2003 are in consonance with applicable law and jurisprudence and thus affirm the same. Costs against petitioner.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Mario L. GuariÃ±a III, concurring; rollo, p. 31.
Please be informed that a complaint for ALLEGEDLY WORKING FOR A COMPETITOR AS INTELLIGENCE/INVESTIGATION OFFICER while employed at Metroeye Security has been filed against you.
You are advised to report to the office of the undersigned on July 13, 2000 at exactly 1:30 p.m. to submit your written statement and explanation in answer to the complaint. You are given the right to present your evidences in the said meeting.
Your failure to report and submit your statement on the said date will be considered as a waiver of your aforesaid rights. In such instance, this office will rule on the basis of the information provided to us by the complainant.
Meanwhile, you are hereby placed under Preventive Suspension effective immediately.
1. THAT, last May 29, 2000 I have already submitted my certification letter coming from Alas Security Services, Inc. stated that I am not connected/employee thereat aforementioned company. (see attached document as an Exhibit "A").
2. THAT, I am innocent to this complaint, the truth of the matter since Oct. 04, 1999 I was assigned in one detachment, and from the start I never been recall that I ve leave my assigned task during my tour of duty.
3. THAT, I vehemently deny that I am an intelligence/investigation officer of other Agency the truth of the matter I am rendered Twelve Hours (12) duty daily in my assigned task. Secondly, I will do my obligation as God servant (Church Minister) and it held Tuesday, Friday night and Sunday morning.
I will send my explanation to your office to shed light the issued against me and I pray that this issue be close. Thank you very much and more power.
Please be informed that a complaint for ALLEGED GROSS DISHONESTY manifested by your act of tampering payroll documents and involvement in the pilferage of construction materials at AMALAND has been filed against you. See attached complaint.
You are advised to report to the undersigned on July 14, 2000 at exactly 1:30 p.m. to submit your written statement and explanation in answer to the complaint. You are given the right to present your evidences in the said meeting.
Please be advised that after a thorough deliberation of the case filed against you and upon serious consideration of the evidence presented, the committee has found you guilty of gross dishonesty by way of tampering payroll documents. This has led to the loss of trust and confidence in you as Security Officer. In view of this, your services as Security Officer is hereby Terminated effective immediately. You are hereby instructed to report to the undersigned for further instructions.
7 Docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-04226-00; Rollo, p. 92.
11 CA rollo, p. 31.
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari . - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
13 Annex "A" of the present petition; CA rollo, p. 30.
18 CA rollo, p. 163.
20 De la Cruz v. Ramiscal, G.R. No. 137882, 4 February 2005, 450 SCRA 449, 456.
21 Junio v. Garilao, G.R. No.147146, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 173, 187; Rualo v. Pitargue, G.R. No. 140284, 21 January 2005, 449 SCRA 121, 141; Cajayon v. Batuyong, G.R. No. 149118, 16 February 2006, 482 SCRA 461, 474; Gatmaitan v. Gonzales, G.R. No.149226, 26 June 2006, 492 SCRA 591, 604.
22 Real v. Belo, G.R. No.146224, 17 January 2007.
23 Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Matias, G.R. No.156283, 6 May 2005, 458 SCRA 148, 163.
24 Pascua v. National Labor Relations Commission, 351 Phil. 48, 62 (1998).
25 G.R. No. 140189, 28 February 2005, 452 SCRA 422, 437.
26 Manly Express, Inc. v. Payong, Jr., G.R. No. 167462, 25 October 2005, 474 SCRA 323, 330.
29 Hernandez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 84302, 10 August 1989, 176 SCRA 269, 274.
30 Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 110388, 14 September 1995, 248 SCRA 183, 199-200.
31 Tiu v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 83433, 12 November 1992, 215 SCRA 540, 547.
32 P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158758, 29 April 2005, 457 SCRA 784, 798-799.
33 Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158232, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 737, 766.
34 Etcuban, Jr. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 148410, 17 January 2005, 448 SCRA 516, 529.
35 Northwest Tourism Corporation v. Former Special 3rd Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150591, 27 June 2005, 461 SCRA 298, 308-309.
37 Durban Apartments Corporation v. Catacutan, G.R. No. 167136, 14 December 2005, 477 SCRA 801, 810-811.
38 Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Empleyado ng Wellcome-DFA (NEW-DFA), G.R. No. 149349, 11 March 2005, 453 SCRA 256, 268.
39 Brew Master International Inc. v. National Federation of Labor Unions, 337 Phil. 728, 737 (1997).
40 Caingat v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 154308, 10 March 2005, 453 SCRA 142, 153-154.
41 Ruffy v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 84193, 15 February 1990, 182 SCRA 365, 369-370.
42 G and M Phils., Inc. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 140495, 15 April 2005, 456 SCRA 215, 220.

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.