Facts:

Rosemarie Balba (Petitioner) filed a complaint against Peak Development, Inc. and Ma. Isabel Vasquez (Respondents) alleging illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and non-payment of several benefits, including service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and cash conversion of her vacation leave. The petitioner commenced her employment on January 20, 1994, as Systems Administration Personnel and was later appointed as Finance Officer in November 1994 after the previous Finance Officer was terminated. The crux of the dispute arose in October 1995 when Balba was tasked to prepare an E-VAT study. After attending a seminar funded by the company, she failed to submit her report even by the time the law was implemented in January 1996.

In February 1996, a new Internal Auditor, Chelita B. Icaro, was assigned, who then reported several irregularities in the company’s accounting practices. When Balba was questioned about her failure to act on these findings, she allegedly reacted dismis

...

Facts:

Background and Employment

• Complainant Rosemarie Balba was employed by Peak Development Inc. as Systems Administration Personnel starting January 20, 1994.
• She was initially involved in computerizing the company’s Finance Department and later promoted to Finance Officer in November 1994 following the termination of the previous Finance Officer.
• Her employment status was not disputed by both parties, although issues arose related to her job performance and responsibilities.

Allegations and Charges

• In her amended complaint dated July 1, 1996, petitioner charged respondents with:

- Illegal suspension and dismissal. - Nonpayment of service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and cash conversion of vacation leave. - Claim for damages.

Evidence of Inefficiency and Audit Findings

• A new Internal Auditor, Ms. Chelita B. Icaro, was hired on February 9, 1996, who compiled audit findings revealing various irregularities such as:

- Lack of proper subsidiary ledger cards and proper accounting documentation. - Delays in submission of cash position reports and late bank reconciliations. - Erroneous recording practices including misuse of accounts and failure to maintain proper financial controls. - A memorandum dated April 17, 1996, placed the complainant under preventive suspension and demanded her explanation regarding several alleged failures. - A subsequent memorandum dated May 2, 1996, required an explanation about charging overtime pay despite her status as a managerial employee.

Disciplinary Actions and Initial Decisions

• Based on her unsatisfactory explanations and allegations of insubordination, negligence, and incompetence, an individual respondent terminated her employment on May 20, 1996, citing loss of trust and confidence.
• The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the illegal dismissal complaint on grounds of lack of merit but ordered the payment of proportionate 13th month pay.
• The complainant, as private respondent, further appealed to the NLRC, which later declared her dismissal illegal and awarded separation pay, one-year backwages, and attorney’s fees, while modifying the previous decision.

Proceedings on Appeal and Reversal

• Petitioner instituted a petition for review under Rule 45 challenging:

- The NLRC’s decision alleging grave abuse of discretion. - The conflict between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the subsequent NLRC decision.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Factual Review

• Whether the CA erred by delving into factual findings rather than limiting its review to errors of jurisdiction in a writ of certiorari and prohibition.
• Whether it was proper for the CA to evaluate the conflicting factual determinations of the LA and the NLRC to ascertain if there was grave abuse of discretion.

Justification of Dismissal

• Whether the grounds cited for dismissal—inefficient accounting and financial policies, failure to produce an E-VAT study on time, and charging of overtime pay—constituted just and valid causes for termination based on loss of trust and confidence.
• Whether the alleged inefficiencies and delays amounted to misconduct sufficient to justify the respondent’s loss of confidence in the petitioner’s capabilities.

Comparative Evaluation of Decisions

• Whether the NLRC’s ruling declaring the petitioner’s dismissal as illegal was properly supported by evidence or if the Labor Arbiter’s findings of dismissal due to gross inefficiency and incompetence were more consistent with the record.
• Whether the petitioner’s act of charging overtime pay, along with the other grounds, could be aggregated to demonstrate a breach of trust amounting to misconduct.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)