Case Digest (G.R. No. 202724)
Facts:
Bance, et al. v. University of St. Anthony, G.R. No. 202724, February 03, 2021, the Supreme Court Third Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Susan M. Bance, Arlene C. Dimaiwat, Jean O. Velasco, Nancy M. Aguirre, and Hazel A. Lobetania (collectively, petitioners) were regular employees of University of St. Anthony (University). Atty. Santiago D. Ortega, Jr. was sued as the University's President and Chairman of the Board; Mrs. Victoria S.D. Ortega was initially impleaded but later dropped. In mid-2006 anomalies surfaced in the University’s Accounting Office; an external audit (March 13, 2007) disclosed a cash shortage of P1,239,856.25 allegedly under Lobetania’s custody. A further audit (May 15, 2007) disclosed other irregular transactions.
In late 2007 petitioners (except Lobetania) were discovered to have enrolled unqualified relatives and children in the University's group enrollment incentive program. Conferences were convened in December 2007 during which the petitioners admitted the unauthorized discounts; Office Memo No. 007-026 (22 December 2007) informed them their employment would terminate effective 1 January 2008. Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre tendered resignations dated 22 December 2007 (effective 2 January 2008) which Atty. Ortega approved; Lobetania had earlier tendered resignation on 27 July 2007 (approved 9 August 2007). Bance did not resign. The University filed criminal complaints (estafa/qualified theft) against the petitioners; prosecutions were pending.
The petitioners filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims before the Labor Arbiter (LA). On October 1, 2008 the LA found the dismissals illegal, ordered reinstatement and awarded backwages, other benefits and ordered reimbursement to Lobetania of P1,239,856.25. The LA rested on respondents’ waiver for belated position papers and concluded respondents failed to prove just cause and procedural due process.
Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On September 30, 2009 the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA Decision, declaring the complainants not illegally dismissed; it held that Dimaiwat, Velasco, Aguirre, and Lobetania had voluntarily resigned and that Bance’s dismissal had factual basis (serious misconduct) though procedural due process lapses merited nominal indemnity (P5,000), and ordered other limited monetary awards (holiday pay; Lobetania’s prorated 13th month). Mrs. Ortega was dropped as respondent. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, denied April 8, 2010.
Petitioners elevated the case via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (CA) to the Court of Appeals (CA). On April 17, 2012 the CA in CA‑G.R. SP No. 115111 affirmed the NLRC’s Decision with modification deleting the P5,000 nominal damages to Bance; it held Bance and...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the voluntary resignations of Lobetania, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre render their complaints for illegal dismissal without basis?
- Was Bance illegally dismissed (i.e., were there substantive and procedural due process defects)?
- Did the labor tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate Lobetania’s claim for reimb...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)