G.R. No. 192582 - Bluer than Blue Joint Ventures Co. vs. Esteban

Glyza Esteban was employed in January 2004 as a Sales Clerk by Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Company.
In 2006, she was assigned to work at the EGG boutique located in SM City Marilao, Bulacan.
Her designated job title was “Sales Clerk,” but her actual functions extended to:

In November 2006, the petitioner received a report that several employees were accessing the company’s point-of-sale (POS) system using a universal password provided by Elmer Flores.
An investigation revealed that Esteban was the one who had given Flores the password.
It was further discovered that:

Esteban admitted to using the universal password three times on a day in December 2005.
Her act was triggered by curiosity after noticing other employees accessing the system.

On November 8, 2006, the petitioner sent Esteban a letter memorandum demanding an explanation regarding her actions, citing possible disciplinary sanctions.
Concurrently, she was placed under a preventive suspension for ten days until further notice.
After lifting her suspension on November 13, 2006, the petitioner terminated her employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, characterizing her conduct as a breach of company policy.
With termination, Esteban received a final pay which included benefits and bonuses, less a deduction of P8,304.93 for alleged inventory variance.

Esteban filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, holiday pay, rest day, and separation pay.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) issued a decision on September 28, 2007, ruling in her favor and awarding separation pay, backwages, salaries during the preventive suspension, and attorney’s fees.
The petitioner appealed, and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA decision on September 23, 2008, dismissing the illegal dismissal claim but ordering the refund of the deducted amount.
On certiorari, the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 25, 2009, reinstated the LA decision with modifications:

Separation pay was recalculated from January 2, 2004, rather than November 25, 2003.
The CA annulled the NLRC ruling and reinstated the finding of illegal dismissal.

The petitioner raised several assignment of errors, arguing abuse of discretion related to:

The applicability of “loss of trust and confidence” as a ground for dismissal for rank-and-file employees.
The proportionality in applying discipline for Esteban’s acts.
The imposition of preventive suspension.
The validity of deducting P8,304.93 from her wages.

Whether the ground of loss of trust and confidence is applicable to a rank-and-file employee like Esteban, given that her actual work, notwithstanding her job title, involved handling the company’s property and funds.
Whether Esteban’s unauthorized use of the POS system—specifically using and disseminating the universal password—constitutes a willful breach justifying dismissal for loss of trust and confidence.
Whether imposing a preventive suspension on Esteban was warranted considering the time elapsed between the commission of the act and the investigation.
Whether the deduction of P8,304.93 from her final salary, representing negative inventory variances, is legally permissible under the provisions of the Labor Code and the Omnibus Rules.