Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84194:59624&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:53:49+00:00

Document:
ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA THERESA V. SANCHEZ, Respondent.
I am very sorry for bringing things from [SLMC] inside my bag. Pasensya na po. Taos-puso po akong humihingi ng tawad sa aking pagkakasala, Alam ko po na ako ay nagkamali. Hindi ko po dapat dinala yung mga gamit sa hospital. Hindi ko po alam kung [paano] ako magsisimulang humingi ng patawad. Kahit alam kong bawal ay nagawa kong makapag uwi ng gamit. Marami pang gamit dahil sa naipon po. Paisa-isa nagagawa kong makakuha pag nakakalimutan kong isoli. Hindi ko na po naiwan sa nurse station dahil naisip kong magagamit ko rin po pag minsang nagkakaubusan ng stocks at talagang may kailangan.
Humihingi po ako ng tawad sa aking ginawa. Isinakripisyo ko ang hindi pagiging “toxic” sa pagkuha ng gamit para sa bagay na alam kong mali. Inaamin ko na ako’y naging madamot, pasuway at makasalanan. Inuna ko ang comfort ko keysa gumawa ng tama. Manikluhod po akong humihingi ng tawad.
In a memorandum14 of even date, the IHSD, Customer Affairs Division, through Duty Officer Hernani R. Janayon, apprised SLMC of the incident, highlighting that Sanchez expressly admitted that she intentionally brought out the questioned items.
On May 31, 2011, Sanchez submitted an Incident Report Addendum17 (May 31, 2011 letter), explaining that the questioned items came from the medication drawers of patients who had already been discharged, and, as similarly practiced by the other staff members, she started saving these items as excess stocks in her pouch, along with other basic items that she uses during her shift.18 She then put the pouch inside the lowest drawer of the bedside table in the treatment room for use in immediate procedures in case replenishment of stocks gets delayed. However, on the day of the incident, she failed to return the pouch inside the medication drawer upon getting her tri-colored pen and calculator and, instead, placed it inside her bag. Eventually, she forgot about the same as she got caught up in work, until it was noticed by the guard on duty on her way out of SMLC’s premises.
Consequently, Sanchez was placed under preventive suspension effective June 3, 2011 until the conclusion of the investigation by SLMC’s Employee and Labor Relations Department (ELRD)19 which, thereafter, required her to explain why she should not be terminated from service for “acts of dishonesty” due to her possession of the questioned items in violation of Section 1, Rule I of the SLMC Code of Discipline.20 In response, she submitted a letter21 dated June 13, 2011, which merely reiterated her claims in her previous May 31, 2011 letter. She likewise requested for a case conference,22 which SLMC granted.23 After hearing her side, SLMC, on July 4, 2011, informed Sanchez of its decision to terminate her employment effective closing hours of July 6, 2011. 24 This prompted her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 07-11042-11.
In a Decision30 dated May 27, 2012, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Sanchez was validly dismissed31 for intentionally taking the property of SLMC’s clients for her own personal benefit,32 which constitutes an act of dishonesty as provided under SLMC’s Code of Discipline.
In a Decision39 dated November 19, 2012, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA ruling, and held that Sanchez was illegally dismissed.
In a Decision50 dated November 21, 2013, the CA upheld the NLRC, ruling that the latter did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding that Sanchez was illegally dismissed.
Tested against the foregoing, the Court finds that Sanchez was validly dismissed by SLMC for her willful disregard and disobedience of Section 1, Rule I of the SLMC Code of Discipline, which reasonably punishes acts of dishonesty, i.e., “theft, pilferage of hospital or co-employee property, x x x or its attempt in any form or manner from the hospital, co-employees, doctors, visitors, [and] customers (external and internal)” with termination from employment.60 Such act is obviously connected with Sanchez’s work, who, as a staff nurse, is tasked with the proper stewardship of medical supplies. Significantly, records show that Sanchez made a categorical admission61 in her handwritten letter62 – i.e., “[k]ahit alam kong bawal ay nagawa kong [makapag-uwi] ng gamit”63 – that despite her knowledge of its express prohibition under the SLMC Code of Discipline, she still knowingly brought out the subject medical items with her. It is apt to clarify that SLMC cannot be faulted in construing the taking of the questioned items as an act of dishonesty (particularly, as theft, pilferage, or its attempt in any form or manner) considering that the intent to gain may be reasonably presumed from the furtive taking of useful property appertaining to another.64 Note that Section 1, Rule 1 of the SLMC Code of Discipline is further supplemented by the company policy requiring the turn-over of excess medical supplies/items for proper handling65 and providing a restriction on taking and bringing such items out of the SLMC premises without the proper authorization or “pass” from the official concerned,66 which Sanchez was equally aware thereof.67 Nevertheless, Sanchez failed to turn-over the questioned items and, instead, “hoarded” them, as purportedly practiced by the other staff members in the Pediatric Unit. As it is clear that the company policies subject of this case are reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to the employee, and evidently connected with the latter’s work, the Court concludes that SLMC dismissed Sanchez for a just cause.
Finally, the Court finds it inconsequential that SLMC has not suffered any actual damage. While damage aggravates the charge, its absence does not mitigate nor negate the employee’s liability.71 Neither is SLMC’s non-filing of the appropriate criminal charges relevant to this analysis. An employee’s guilt or innocence in a criminal case is not determinative of the existence of a just or authorized cause for his or her dismissal.72 It is well-settled that conviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find just cause for termination of employment,73 as in this case. Criminal and labor cases involving an employee arising from the same infraction are separate and distinct proceedings which should not arrest any judgment from one to the other.
As it stands, the Court thus holds that the dismissal of Sanchez was for a just cause, supported by substantial evidence, and is therefore in order. By declaring otherwise, bereft of any substantial bases, the NLRC issued a patently and grossly erroneous ruling tantamount to grave abuse of discretion, which, in turn, means that the CA erred when it affirmed the same. In consequence, the grant of the present petition is warranted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 21, 2013 and the Resolution dated April 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 129108 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated May 27, 2012 in NLRC Case No. NCR 07-11042-11 finding respondent Maria Theresa V. Sanchez to have been validly dismissed by petitioner St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. is hereby REINSTATED.
2 Id. at 40-50. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
4 Id. at 255-265. Penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palaña with Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo and Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena concurring.
7 Id. at 89 and 200.
8 Id. at 108. The total value of the medical items seized from Sanchez allegedly amounted to P615.00.
11 See Incident Report dated May 29, 2011; id. at 112.
18 Such as black ball pen, tri-colored pen, stamp/trodat, bandage, scissors, and calculator. Id.
19 See memorandum dated June 1, 2011 of Labor Relations Manager, ELRD Benjamin C. Altavas; id. at 168.
20 See memorandum dated June 9, 2011 of Labor Relations Manager Allan “Jeremy” Raymond R. Ignacio; id. at 115.
23 Hearings were conducted on June 14 and 15, 2011; id. at 118 and 172-181.
24 See memorandum dated July 4, 2011; id. at 118-119.
25 Dated September 14, 2011. Id. at 154-164.
26 See id. at 203-206.
27 Id. at 88-107. Dated September 13, 2011.
Robbery, theft, pilferage of hospital or co-employee property, and/or misappropriation of funds or its attempt in any form or manner from the hospital, co-employees, doctors, visitors, customers (external and internal).
30 Id. at 199-215. Penned by Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan.
38 See Notice of Appeal dated June 21, 2012; id. at 216-217.
42 Id. at 262. See also minutes of the case conference before the ELRD held on June 14, 2011; id. at 174.
43 Id. at 174 and 263.
47 See Motion for Reconsideration dated December 7, 2012; id. at 266-283.
49 Dated March 22, 2013. Id. at 287-311.
53 See Motion for Reconsideration dated December 17, 2013; id. at 54-69.
55Deles, Jr. v. NLRC, 384 Phil. 271, 281-282 (2000).
56 See Phil. Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Aguinaldo, 499 Phil. 215, 225 (2005).
57Malabago v. NLRC, 533 Phil. 292, 300 (2006).
59 Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 75907, March 23, 1992, 207 SCRA 415, 421.
64 See Beltran, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 181355, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 728, 744-745.
65 In the memorandum dated July 4, 2011, it was mentioned that excess medical items “bought and paid for by the patients’ parents or relatives x x x should [be] surrendered for proper handling as specified in the Computerized Nursing Transcription System, specifically the [turn-in] of served, but unused, and unserved items.” See rollo, p. 118.
66 See Section 7.c. of the SLMC Code of Discipline; id. at 126. See also id. at 119.
67 As admitted in her handwritten letter. Id. at 110.
69 See San Miguel Corporation v. Ubaldo, G.R. No. 92859, February 1, 1993, 218 SCRA 293, 300.
70Areno, Jr. v. Skycable PCC-Baguio, 625 Phil. 561, 579 (2010).
71Panuncillo v. CAP Philippines, Inc., 544 Phil. 256, 268 (2007), citing Lopez v. NLRC (2nd Div.), 513 Phil. 731, 738 (2005).
72Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of the Phils. v. Guanzon, 254 Phil. 578, 584 (1989).
73 Reno Foods, Inc. and/or Khu v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan, 629 Phil. 247, 256 (2010).

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