Case Digest (G.R. No. 130617)
Facts:
Ma. Liza de Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission and Rex Bookstore, Inc., G.R. No. 130617, August 11, 1999, the Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ma. Liza de Guzman (De Guzman) was employed by respondent Rex Bookstore, Inc. (Rex) as a cashier beginning 17 April 1989. On 5 August 1995 an outside sales agent presented to De Guzman two identical unofficial receipts for the same transaction. Believing the agent when he stated he made two deliveries, De Guzman paid the agent P5,520.00 (two receipts of P2,760.00 each). Rex contended this was an overpayment and charged De Guzman with dereliction of duty under company rules; she was placed under a thirty-day preventive suspension beginning 14 August 1995 and was later terminated by memorandum dated 18 September 1995 referring to RBS‑PRES 95‑001 (decision dated 14 September 1995) which affirmed the Fact Finding Committee's recommendation to dismiss her and seek recovery of P2,760.00.
On 5 August 1995 (a day after her preventive suspension) De Guzman filed a complaint for illegal suspension with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-05777-95). After her dismissal she amended the complaint to add illegal dismissal, claims for 13th month pay, attorney’s fees, and later claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages. Rex answered, asserting De Guzman failed to verify the receipts and that company policy required supervisor approval for disbursements.
Labor Arbiter Salimathar B. Nambi rendered a decision on 17 December 1996 ordering reinstatement without loss of seniority, full back wages from the time of dismissal until reinstatement, payment of 13th month pay for 1995 and 1996, and P10,000.00 attorney’s fees; claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages were dismissed. Respondent Rex appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC, in a decision dated 20 May 1997, affirmed with modification: it ordered payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (P34,164.00) and deleted the award of back wages and attorney’s fees, explaining that while De Guzman was negligent, the negligence was not gross and the period she was out of work should be considered her penalty; accordingly, she was not entitled to back wages. The NLRC denied her partial motion for reconsideration in a resolution of 10 July 1997.
De Guzman filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by deleting the award of back wages?
- Given the finding of illegal dismissal, was De Guzman entitled to back wages (and in what amount or period) despite the NLRC’s as...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)