Case Digest (G.R. No. 169549)
Facts:
John Hancock Life Insurance Corporation and/or Michael Plaxton v. Joanna Cantre Davis, G.R. No. 169549, September 03, 2008, Supreme Court First Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.John Hancock Life Insurance Corporation (petitioner) employed Joanna Cantre Davis (respondent) as agency administration officer. On October 18, 2000, petitioner’s corporate affairs manager, Patricia Yuseco, reported her wallet missing and discovered unauthorized transactions charged to her credit cards. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) assisted petitioner’s internal inquiry, obtained a security video from Abenson’s-Robinsons Place, and—according to petitioner’s witnesses—identified the person in the tape as respondent. The NBI and Yuseco filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft with the Manila city prosecutor, but the prosecutor dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence because the affidavits were not properly verified.
Petitioner placed respondent on preventive suspension and instructed her to cooperate with the investigation. Instead, respondent filed an illegal dismissal complaint against petitioner before the labor arbiter (docketed NLRC NCR Case No. 30-11-04413-00). In a decision dated May 21, 2002, Labor Arbiter Roma C. Asinas found respondent guilty of serious misconduct and dismissed her complaint. The National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) affirmed that decision in a July 31, 2003 decision (NLRC CA No. 032865-02) and denied reconsideration on October 30, 2003.
Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 81515), arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion because the city prosecutor found no probable cause for qualified theft and the criminal case was dismissed on technical grounds. The Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division, Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, retired, writing) granted the petition in a July 4, 2005 decision, holding that the labor arbiter and NLRC merely adopted unverified NBI affidavits and therefore lacked substantial evidence to sustain dismissal. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on September 1, 2005.
Pe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner substantially prove the existence of a valid cause for respondent’s termination from employment...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)