G.R. No. 228449 - Aluag vs. BIR Multi-Purpose Cooperative

Grace R. Aluag was employed as the cashier of BIR Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BIRMPC) from November 16, 1994 until her termination on October 31, 2013.
As cashier, her duties included receiving remittances and payments, depositing all collections daily, maintaining records of fixed deposits and cash positions, issuing checks for loans, collecting cash receipts, and performing other duties as assigned by the general manager.

From the start of her employment, Aluag initially submitted verbal weekly reports on BIRMPC’s funds until 2010 when written reports were mandated.
In 2011, the company’s loan processors began accepting post-dated checks with the prior approval of the general manager, Gerardo Flores.
In July 2013, following Flores’ instruction, Aluag submitted a report of bounced checks and deposited the remaining checks in her possession.
On July 16, 2013, shortly before her maternity, Aluag received a letter from the Board of Directors temporarily relieving her from her post pending an investigation involving her and two loan processors on several suspicious loans.
Despite being given ten days to submit an explanation, she complied on July 29, 2013 – after giving birth – admitting that:

She was responsible for ensuring all collections were deposited daily.
She received and was entrusted with verified post-dated checks for safekeeping and eventual deposit.
She chose not to deposit matured checks upon the request of debtors.

Aluag subsequently went on maternity leave from July 30 to September 30, 2013 and later received another letter suspending her employment from August 1 to October 31, 2013.
Claiming the suspension to be illegal, she filed a complaint for illegal suspension with the NLRC.
While the case was pending, on October 31, 2013, Aluag received a letter terminating her employment, prompting her to amend the complaint to one for illegal dismissal.

BIRMPC argued that Aluag was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence due to her repeated infractions.
Specific infractions highlighted included:

Acceptance of accommodation (post-dated) checks.
Failure to deposit checks on their due dates as required.
Not reporting checks with insufficient funds or those from closed accounts to the manager.
Failure to act on returned or dishonored checks.

The investigation involved interviewing Aluag and reviewing loan documents revealing widespread violations of company by-laws, rules, and regulations.
An external accountant’s report corroborated that Aluag:

The complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed for lack of merit.
However, the LA ordered BIRMPC to pay Aluag 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for 2013.
The LA found that, being in a position of trust as a cashier, Aluag’s infractions rationally justified a loss of trust and confidence against her.
It was noted that due process was observed by serving two written notices: one for the statement of charges and another of dismissal.

The NLRC reversed the LA ruling and found that Aluag was illegally dismissed.
It ordered payment of backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees.
The NLRC held that the alleged infractions did not constitute violations of her ministerial duties, since she was not directly responsible for depositing checks nor was it evidenced that the non-deposit was due to debtors’ requests.
Emphasis was placed on the notion that her routine responsibilities did not include the detailed monitoring and timely depositing of post-dated checks.

The CA reversed and set aside the NLRC ruling, reinstating the LA decision.
The appellate court held that Aluag was validly dismissed by BIRMPC on the grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
It asserted that as a cashier, entrusted with the deposit of collections, her failures were significant enough to justify dismissal.
The CA also affirmed that proper procedural due process was observed through sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Aluag filed a petition for certiorari challenging the CA decision.
A procedural defect was noted: Aluag failed to serve a copy of her petition to the CA as mandated under Section 3, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
This omission was pivotal in the ultimate denial of her petition by the Supreme Court.

Whether the CA correctly reversed and set aside the NLRC ruling in holding that BIRMPC had just cause to terminate Aluag’s employment.

The sufficiency of evidence supporting the finding of loss of trust and confidence against Aluag.
Whether Aluag’s actions or inactions fell within or outside the scope of her assigned duties as a cashier.
The observance of substantive and procedural due process in dismissing Aluag.
The impact of Aluag’s failure to serve a copy of her petition to the CA as mandated by the Rules of Court.