Facts:

The case involves Minda Topinio Cadavas (petitioner) against the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City, Davao Doctors Hospital (DDH), and Raymundo Del Val (respondents). Cadavas was employed as a Staff Nurse at DDH starting January 16, 1989, and was later promoted to Nurse Supervisor. On May 11, 2012, she was dismissed from her position. The incident leading to her dismissal occurred in February 2012 when her aunt, Shirley Aninion, was hospitalized at DDH for stage four breast cancer. To alleviate her aunt's hospital expenses, Cadavas, with the assistance of some hospital staff, obtained medical supplies and medicines from the hospital's Emergency Department and Operating Room Central Supply Service without proper documentation, intending to replace them later with items purchased outside the hospital. The total value of the items taken was approximately P6,000.

On April 16, 2012, DDH issued a notice to Cadavas to explain her actions regarding the unauthorized with...

Facts:

Employment Background:

• Petitioner Minda Cadavas was hired as a Staff Nurse by respondent Davao Doctors Hospital (DDH) on January 16, 1989. She was later promoted to Nurse Supervisor and served in this capacity until her dismissal on May 11, 2012.

Incident Leading to Dismissal:

• In February 2012, Cadavas' aunt, Shirley Aninion, was hospitalized at DDH for breast cancer. To reduce her aunt's hospital expenses, Cadavas obtained supplies and medicines from the Emergency Department and Operating Room Central Supply Service without recording the transaction. The items, valued at approximately P6,000, were later replaced by Cadavas after being purchased at a lower price outside the hospital.

Notice and Investigation:

• On April 16, 2012, DDH issued a notice to Cadavas, requiring her to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for the alleged willful abuse of hospital property. Cadavas submitted a written explanation on April 18, 2012, admitting to the act but claiming it was done with the consent of hospital staff and to help her aunt financially.
• An administrative hearing was held on May 2, 2012, where Cadavas reiterated her explanation and admitted to violating hospital policies.

Termination:

• On May 9, 2012, DDH terminated Cadavas' employment for dishonesty and loss of trust and confidence, citing her violation of hospital policies and her influence over subordinate employees to bypass proper recording procedures.

Issue:

1. Whether Cadavas was validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.
2. Whether the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the offense committed.
3. Whether Cadavas was denied due process during the termination proceedings.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the NLRC's reversal of the Labor Arbiter's decision.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that:

1. Valid Dismissal for Loss of Trust and Confidence:

   • Cadavas, as a Nurse Supervisor, held a position of trust and confidence. Her act of obtaining hospital supplies without proper recording violated hospital policies and constituted dishonesty, justifying her dismissal.

2. Proportionality of Penalty:

   • The penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate given the gravity of the offense, especially since Cadavas was in a supervisory role and was expected to enforce hospital policies.

3. Due Process Compliance:

   • Cadavas was afforded due process, as she was given notice of the charges, an opportunity to explain, and a hearing before her termination.

4. Reversal of Labor Arbiter's Decision:

   • The Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the NLRC's reversal of the Labor Arbiter's decision, as the Labor Arbiter's finding that dismissal was too harsh was inconsistent with the established facts and legal principles.

Ratio:

1. Loss of Trust and Confidence:

   • Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate an employee for fraud or willful breach of trust. Cadavas, as a managerial employee, was expected to uphold hospital policies. Her deliberate violation of these policies, despite her awareness of them, constituted a willful breach of trust.

2. Proportionality of Penalty:

   • The Court emphasized that managerial employees are held to a higher standard of conduct. Cadavas' actions, which involved dishonesty and influencing subordinates to violate policies, warranted dismissal.

3. Due Process:

   • The twin requirements of notice and hearing were satisfied. Cadavas was informed of the charges, given an opportunity to explain, and participated in a hearing before her termination.

4. Separation Pay:

   • The Court ruled that separation pay is not warranted in cases of dismissal for serious misconduct or breach of trust. Since Cadavas was dismissed for willful breach of trust, she was not entitled to separation pay.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Cadavas, finding that her actions constituted a valid ground for termination under the Labor Code. The Court also affirmed that due process was observed and that the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the offense committed.