GR 158583; (September, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158583 , September 10, 2014
ROSALIE L. GARGOLES, Petitioner, vs. REYLITA S. DEL ROSARIO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE JAY ANNE’S ONE HOUR PHOTO SHOP, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosalie L. Gargoles started working as an “all-around employee” for respondent Reylita S. Del Rosario’s photo shop on February 20, 1992. On March 28, 1998, she received a letter terminating her employment for dishonesty. The respondent, in her position paper, alleged that through investigation in March 1998, it was discovered that the petitioner tampered with daily production reports by making double entries of the same job envelope and using twin check numbers, thereby pocketing the cash equivalent of the padded prints, causing damage of ₱11,305.00 from December 1, 1997, to March 25, 1998. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals, in a special civil action for certiorari, affirmed the finding of just cause for dismissal but held that the petitioner’s right to due process was violated, ordering the respondent to pay ₱5,000.00 as indemnity.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed, specifically: (1) if there was just cause for her dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, and (2) if procedural due process was observed in effecting her dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the finding of just cause for dismissal but modifying the CA decision by deleting the indemnity for violation of due process.
1. On Just Cause for Dismissal: The Court held that the petitioner’s act of dishonesty, involving tampering with production reports and making double entries to appropriate company funds, constituted a breach of the trust reposed in her as an employee handling money and property. This is a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code (fraud or willful breach of trust). The finding was supported by substantial evidence, including the production reports with double entries and the affidavit of a co-employee, Redelito Caranay, Jr. The petitioner’s failure to sufficiently rebut this evidence established the charge against her.
2. On Procedural Due Process: The Court held that the respondent complied with the two-notice rule. The respondent presented a letter dated March 25, 1998, which detailed the charges and required the petitioner to submit her explanation within 72 hours. The letter bore a handwritten annotation “refused to sign,” indicating the petitioner’s refusal to receive it. A second letter dated March 28, 1998, informed her of the termination of her services, which she also refused to acknowledge. The petitioner’s refusal to receive the notices and her failure to submit an explanation constituted a waiver of her right to contest the charges, and thus, there was no denial of due process. Consequently, the ₱5,000.00 indemnity awarded by the CA was deleted.