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:

Background and Employment

• Petitioner Minda Topinio Cadavas was hired as a Staff Nurse by respondent Davao Doctors Hospital (DDH) on January 16, 1989, and later promoted to Nurse Supervisor.
• At the time of the incident, she was supervising several departments including the Operating Room-Delivery Room (OR-DR), Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and Hemodialysis Departments.

The Incident Involving Hospital Supplies

• In February 2012, while her aunt, Shirley Aninion, was undergoing treatment for stage four breast cancer at DDH, Cadavas facilitated the acquisition of medicines and supplies to lessen her aunt’s hospital expenses.
• With the assistance of some hospital staff, she obtained supplies and medicines from the Emergency Department and the Operating Room Central Supply Service without having such transactions recorded, under an arrangement to later replace the withdrawn items (valued at approximately P6,000.00) at a lower cost than charged to the patient.
• Despite her claim that the action was intended to reduce her aunt’s P254,000.00 hospital bill and that the items were eventually replaced, Cadavas admitted to violating hospital policy, which expressly prohibits unrecorded withdrawals and the purchase of supplies outside DDH’s pharmacy.

Administrative Proceedings and Disciplinary Action

• On April 16, 2012, DDH sent Cadavas a notice to explain her conduct regarding the unrecorded withdrawal of supplies, prompting her to submit a letter of explanation on April 18, 2012.
• During an administrative hearing on May 2, 2012, Cadavas reiterated that she had only sought to help her aunt and that, although aware of hospital rules, she went ahead due to a longstanding practice of allowing replacements in lieu of formal recording of transactions.
• Despite her explanation and the claim that the practice was common, DDH issued a memorandum on May 9, 2012 terminating her employment for dishonesty and loss of trust and confidence, emphasizing her supervisory role and the duty to enforce strict adherence to policies.

Subsequent Legal and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings

• Cadavas filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on May 16, 2012, arguing that the dismissal was excessively harsh given her 23 years of service and that she was denied due process.
• The Labor Arbiter initially rendered a decision in favor of Cadavas, citing her long service and adherence to practices tolerated by hospital management; the Arbiter awarded her separation pay.
• However, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on February 28, 2013, holding that as a Nurse Supervisor—a position of trust and confidence—Cadavas’s act of obtaining supplies without proper record was a willful breach of duty warranting dismissal.

Appeals and Petition for Certiorari

• DDH appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and the Court of Appeals later affirmed, finding that Cadavas’s supervisory role increased her responsibility to adhere to policy and that her actions justified the loss of trust and confidence.
• Cadavas then filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals over issues including the interpretation of “loss of trust and confidence,” the proportionality of the dismissal penalty, and the alleged denial of due process.
• The petitioner also contended that the facts surrounding the practice of replacement and the casual enforcement of the policy should have mitigated the harshness of her dismissal, citing relevant precedents.

Issue:

Validity of the Dismissal

• Was the dismissal of petitioner Cadavas for willful breach of trust valid under Article 282 of the Labor Code?
• Did Cadavas’s actions in unrecorded retrieval and replacement of hospital supplies constitute a sufficient ground for loss of trust and confidence given her position as Nurse Supervisor?

Due Process Considerations

• Was Cadavas provided with the twin requirements of due process, namely adequate notice of the specific acts leading to her dismissal and a fair opportunity to be heard before termination?
• Did the administrative procedures followed by DDH, including the notice to explain and the subsequent hearing, satisfy constitutional and statutory due process requirements?

Appropriateness and Proportionality of the Punishment

• Was the penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the offense, particularly in light of Cadavas’s 23 years of service and claims of mitigating factors such as the common practice of replacement of supplies?
• Should the court have entertained arguments comparing this incident to precedents where similar policies were enforced less strictly, such as in Conti v. NLRC or Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Baban?

Correct Mode of Appeal

• Did petitioner Cadavas avail of the proper remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, or should her appeal have been pursued under Rule 45 on questions of law?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)