G.R. No. 193324 , July 23, 2014
ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner, vs. DANIEL QUEBRAL and ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION – ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS (SLMCEA-AFW), Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Daniel Quebral was employed by petitioner St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC) as a Wellness Center Assistant, tasked with promoting the Executive Check-up Program. Part of his duty involved claiming pre-approved parking validation tickets from the hospital’s Information and Concierge Section for patients, as the tickets extended discounted parking privileges strictly for confined patients and their representatives. From December 3, 2006, to January 21, 2007, Quebral used these validation tickets for his personal vehicle on at least 20 occasions, incurring unpaid parking fees of ₱1,250. When confronted by the Department Manager of In-House Security, Arnel U. Ceriola, on January 23, 2007, Quebral apologized, stated he was unaware employees were not allowed to use the tickets, and paid the amount. Ceriola reported the incident. SLMC’s Employee and Labor Relations Department (ELRD) issued a Notice to Explain. In his reply and during subsequent conferences, Quebral maintained his lack of knowledge of the policy, claiming the Concierge staff provided him tickets without hesitation. The Information and Concierge Associates submitted a joint statement and testified that Quebral would ask for tickets stating they were for the “Wellness Program,” and that all employees knew the tickets were exclusively for patients. The ELRD found Quebral guilty of dishonesty under the company’s Code of Discipline and terminated his employment on March 6, 2007. Quebral appealed, and the dismissal was temporarily held in abeyance. Upon auxiliary review, SLMC considered Quebral’s prior infractions (a written reprimand and a three-day suspension for gross inefficiency in 2006) and upheld the dismissal effective May 22, 2007. The Secretary of Labor found the dismissal illegal, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Daniel Quebral was validly dismissed from employment on the ground of dishonesty.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Quebral was validly dismissed for dishonesty. The Court held that loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissal of an employee charged with the duty of safeguarding the employer’s property. Quebral, as a Wellness Center Assistant, was entrusted with claiming parking validation tickets strictly for patients. His repeated personal use of these tickets over two months constituted a breach of that trust. The Court found his claim of ignorance of the policy not credible given his position, tenure, and the explicit wording on the tickets. His act of asking for tickets by stating they were for the “Wellness Program” without disclosing his name demonstrated a dishonest intent to circumvent the rule. The prior infractions, considered in the auxiliary review, further showed a pattern of behavior justifying the penalty of dismissal. The Court emphasized that an employer need not suffer actual damage to dismiss a dishonest employee, as the act of dishonesty itself is sufficient cause. The decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Secretary of Labor were reversed and set aside.