A.M. No. P-22-053 - Santiago vs. Ferdo

In November 1996, respondent Golden Tri Bloc, Inc. (GTBI) hired petitioner Eric Alvarez as a Service Crew member in a Dunkin Donuts franchise in Antipolo City, Rizal.
After six months, petitioner attained regular employee status and was subsequently promoted to Shift Leader, serving in that capacity for four years.
In 2001, petitioner was further promoted to Outlet Supervisor and assigned to manage three Dunkin Donuts outlets (San Roque, Cogeo, and Super 8 in Masinag, all located in Antipolo City).
At this time, his monthly salary was set at P10,000.00.

On May 27, 2009, petitioner reported for duty at approximately 12:30 p.m. at the Super 8, Masinag branch.
As his time card was kept at the San Roque branch, he phoned shift leader Chastine (referred to in parts of the record also as Christine) to request that she "apunch-in" his time card, thereby indicating his presence at work.
The request was complied with by Sambo, and this was further verified by his senior officer, Roland Salindog, who confirmed his attendance at the Super 8, Masinag branch.
The following day, petitioner was informed by Sambo that both he and the helper were suspended, in addition to being directed to submit an incident report regarding the time card.

In his incident report dated May 29, 2009, petitioner admitted instructing Sambo to record his time of arrival on his time card.
He acknowledged arriving at approximately 12:35 p.m., inspected branch stocks, and even assisted a subordinate with a stocks acquisition report.
Petitioner admitted his error, apologized for the lapse, and promised that such an incident would not be repeated.
On June 5, 2009, GTBI directed him to report for a dialogue at its main office on June 9, warning that failure to attend could result in a decision based solely on his written explanation.
Following the dialogue, petitioner was placed on preventive suspension for 30 days without pay.
On June 23, 2009, GTBI terminated petitioner’s employment on the ground of loss of trust.

On July 9, 2009, petitioner filed an illegal dismissal complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA), claiming illegal dismissal and seeking sick leave pay, separation pay, and moral and exemplary damages.
In his Position Paper, petitioner asserted a flawless 12-year service history, contended that dismissal was disproportionate given his supervisory role, and argued that the offense was not work-related.
GTBI maintained that petitioner's act was a dishonest violation of company protocol as defined under its Code of Conduct and Discipline, and argued that procedural due process had been duly observed.
GTBI also submitted records of petitioner’s previous infractions (dating from 1997 through 2004) to demonstrate a pattern of misconduct.
The LA, in its Decision dated April 29, 2010, found petitioner's dismissal to be illegal based on the trivial nature of the transgression, his good service record, and a lack of gross misconduct.
On appeal, GTBI escalated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and later, after several reversals regarding the weight of previous infractions, the NLRC ultimately found petitioner's dismissal valid by applying the totality of infractions approach.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated January 17, 2012, upheld the NLRC ruling, affirming that GTBI had just and sufficient grounds to dismiss petitioner for loss of trust, emphasizing the supervisory nature of his position.

On June 20, 2011, petitioner passed away due to myocardial infarction secondary to skin tuberculosis.
Petitioner's sister, Elizabeth Alvarez Casajeros, was substituted as the petitioner in the proceedings.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied, leading to the present petition for review, which challenges the CA's reliance on belated evidence of prior infractions.

Whether petitioner’s act of instructing a subordinate to punch-in his time card constitutes gross misconduct justifying immediate dismissal.
Whether the dismissal on the ground of "loss of trust" was valid given the nature of the transgression, especially in light of petitioner's explanations and his previously unblemished service record (as claimed).

Whether GTBI’s submission and consideration of records involving alleged infractions committed by petitioner over the years (dating from 1997 to 2004) can legally justify his dismissal.
Whether applying the “totality of infractions” rule is methodologically correct and fair in assessing petitioner's overall fitness for continued employment.

Whether petitioner was afforded sufficient procedural due process, including a proper Notice to Explain and a chance to submit a defense before the disciplinary action, including termination, was finalized.
Whether the procedural steps taken by GTBI complied with the statutory requirements under the Labor Code concerning dismissal for loss of trust.

Whether the belated presentation of petitioner’s previous disciplinary records by GTBI during the NLRC appeal was proper and admissible.
Whether such evidence should have been considered in the determination of the severity of petitioner's misconduct leading to his termination.