G.R. No. 202724 - Bance vs. University of St. Anthony

Petitioners, comprising Susan M. Bance, Arlene C. Dimaiwat, Jean O. Velasco, Nancy M. Aguirre, and Hazel A. Lobetania, were regular employees of the University of St. Anthony.
The University is an educational institution duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, with Atty. Santiago D. Ortega, Jr. acting as its President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, and Mrs. Victoria SD. Ortega formerly being involved as Vice-President for Finance.
Employment details, including dates of employment, positions held, and monthly salaries, were provided for each petitioner.

In June 2006, irregular and anomalous transactions were noted in the University’s Accounting Office.
In January 2007, Atty. Ortega hired an external auditor whose March 13, 2007 audit report revealed a cash shortage of ₱1,239,856.25, meant to be secured inside the cash vault under Lobetania’s custody.
Lobetania was placed on leave of absence and, during a meeting with Atty. Ortega, admitted failing to deposit the funds in the University’s bank account.
Under demand, Lobetania repaid the deficient amount in installments from her own resources, as evidenced by official receipts issued by the University.
A subsequent audit (May 15, 2007) revealed further anomalous transactions, prompting Lobetania’s eventual resignation effective August 1, 2007; her resignation was approved by Atty. Ortega.
Criminal cases for estafa and, later, charges for Qualified Theft were filed against Lobetania in connection with the missing funds.

Factual Developments Relating to Susan M. Bance, Arlene C. Dimaiwat, Jean O. Velasco, and Nancy M. Aguirre

Around the same period, these employees were implicated in a fraudulent scheme involving the enrollment of their children and relatives, including Velasco’s, in the University’s group enrollment incentive program, despite their unqualification.
An investigation, order by Atty. Ortega, was conducted following the discovery of the scheme in November 2007.
During the December 2007 conference, petitioners (except Lobetania) admitted to participating in the unauthorized discount scheme.
Atty. Ortega verbally informed them that their employment would be terminated, followed by Office Memo No. 007-026 issued on December 22, 2007, effective January 1, 2008, citing dishonesty amounting to malversation of school funds.
Whereas Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre tendered their resignations on December 22, 2007 (approved on December 26, 2007), Bance did not tender her resignation.
Criminal cases for Estafa were filed against these petitioners (except that the criminal action for Bance was noted as confirming just cause by the NLRC).

All petitioners filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal with money claims against the University and Atty. Ortega, later amending their complaints to include claims for unpaid salaries, 13th month pay, and additional money claims.
Respondents filed two separate position papers, one addressing Lobetania’s case and another addressing the case of Bance, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre.
Petitioners contended that their dismissals lacked just or authorized cause and that procedural due process was not observed. They prayed for reinstatement, monetary awards (including backwages, holiday pay, 13th month pay), and damages, including moral, nominal, exemplary, and attorney’s fees.
Respondents argued that except for Bance, the petitioners had effectively resigned and, in any event, were dismissed for just cause—citing willful breach of trust and fraud.

Found petitioners illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and other money claims, as well as reimbursement of the alleged cash shortage to Lobetania.
Held that the University failed to prove just or authorized cause and that procedural due process had not been observed.

Reversed and set aside the LA Decision.
Ruled that petitioners (except Bance) voluntarily resigned, rendering their illegal dismissal claims without basis.
Awarded nominal damages of ₱5,000 for Bance due to the lack of procedural due process in her dismissal and also ordered payment of holiday pay and 13th month pay where applicable.
Dismissed Lobetania’s claim for reimbursement of the unaccounted funds.

Court of Appeals (April 17, 2012, and subsequent modification on June 27, 2012):

Affirmed the NLRC ruling with modification by deleting the award of nominal damages in favor of Bance, while confirming that the dismissals (other than Bance’s) were valid due to voluntary resignations or just cause.
Upheld that Lobetania’s reimbursement issue did not arise from an employer-employee relationship.
Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of the LA Decision and additional relief, asserting that the dismissals were unlawful and that procedural due process was inadequately observed.

Whether the voluntary resignations of Lobetania, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre render their respective complaints for illegal dismissal without basis.
Whether the dismissal of Susan M. Bance was valid or whether she was illegally dismissed, particularly in view of the failure to observe proper procedural due process.
Whether the issue regarding reimbursement of the ₱1,239,856.25 allegedly pilfered by Lobetania arises from an employer-employee relationship and, thus, falls within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunal.