G.R. No. 193219 - Copy Central Digital Copy Solution vs. Domrique

Marilyn Domrique and Carina LeaAo were employed as photocopy machine operators by petitioners, Copy Central Digital Copy Solution.
Domrique started on February 21, 1993, and LeaAo in January 1996, both working at the Laoag City branch located at Brgy. 10, A.G. Tupaz Ave.
Their daily wages were set at P145.00 or P200.00 (inclusive of an allowance) for Domrique and P120.00 for LeaAo, along with additional earnings computed as 7% of the branch’s total earnings and free board.

Domrique was responsible for operating one liquid and one powder photocopying machine and for safeguarding photocopying materials.
LeaAo operated a liquid photocopier and was tasked with managing the money collected from customers for the period covering October 1-31, 2005.
Both employees were involved in preparing and submitting meter readings that quantify the number of copies made as reflected by the devices.

On October 12, 2005, LeaAo, along with another employee, formally complained to the DOLE Regional Director in San Fernando City, La Union concerning alleged labor standard violations by the petitioners.
An inspection by a DOLE labor inspector corroborated violations including underpayment of wages, inadequate payment for overtime and holidays, and disregard for other labor benefits.
On November 2, 2005, Susana Montano, the branch manager and wife of petitioner Virgilio Montano, ordered an audit of the Laoag branch’s meter readings.
Reports by technicians Cliezelle Jane aKlenga Jacinto and Albert Alviz revealed discrepancies between the submitted meter readings and the actual figures, alleging that Domrique pocketed P31,472.50 and LeaAo P3,501.00.

Following the audit, Susana Montano recorded the incident with the police on November 3, 2005, and had the respondents execute a document in the Iloco dialect entitled “a Naiget Nga Kari a” (Solemn Promise).
On November 4, 2005, termination letters were issued separately to Domrique and LeaAo, citing loss of trust and confidence due to their alleged acts of fraud and misappropriation (with specific reference to a deficit of P15,059.00 for Domrique and P3,501.00 for LeaAo, as well as misappropriation of bond paper in Domrique’s case).

On November 9, 2005, both respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims before the NLRC, asserting they were not provided with due process and disputing the allegations of misappropriation.
They argued that customers’ payments, collected on a weekly or monthly basis under an allowed company arrangement, accounted for the discrepancies in the meter readings, which were influenced by non-working holiday factors.
Respondents denied any intentional wrongdoing, and even though they executed the "a Naiget Nga Kari a" document, they claimed it merely signified a promise to remit collected amounts rather than an admission of guilt.

The Labor Arbiter, on February 28, 2006, ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring their dismissal illegal and ordering petitioners to pay wage differentials, backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees.
The NLRC initially affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on February 12, 2008, emphasizing that there was insufficient proof that the respondents misappropriated funds.
However, a subsequent NLRC Decision on May 29, 2009, for the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration reversed the earlier decision, arguing that the execution of the “a Naiget Nga Kari a” document and the subsequent partial payments constituted an implicit admission of guilt, thereby justifying dismissal for loss of trust.
The respondents sought reconsideration before the NLRC, which was denied by its Resolution on August 14, 2009.
The CA, on February 16, 2010, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling by setting aside the NLRC’s later decision and held that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a dismissal for just cause.
Petitioners further sought relief on certification for review before the Supreme Court; however, the petition was ultimately not favored as the court found the petitioners’ evidence unconvincing.

Whether the alleged theft and misappropriation of funds by the respondents had been sufficiently proven by evidence to substantiate a dismissal for just cause.
Whether the execution of the “a Naiget Nga Kari a” document, and the subsequent partial payments by the respondents, can be construed as an admission of guilt amounting to just cause for dismissal.

Whether the petitioners complied with due process requirements by providing a two-notice system—first, a notice of the charges, and second, a subsequent notice of dismissal.
Whether the respondents were given the opportunity to explain their side adequately before being summarily dismissed.

Whether the evidence presented, including the meter readings, technician reports, and acknowledgment receipts, sufficed to prove the occurrence of theft or misappropriation.
Whether the findings of probable cause in criminal proceedings should automatically influence the determination in a labor case regarding just cause for dismissal.

The extent to which findings of probable cause for qualified theft in criminal investigations may or may not be binding or persuasive in determining the legality of employment termination in a labor case.