G.R. No. 200658 - Lamadrid vs. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited

Salvacion A. Lamadrid (Lamadrid) was hired by Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (Cathay) in 1990 as a cabin crew.
Cathay’s Conditions of Service required all cabin crew to be based in Hong Kong.
Prior to her termination in 2007, Lamadrid had about 17 years of service as a Senior Purser, earning HK$26,613.00 monthly.
Her duties included supporting the In-flight Service Manager, relaying in-flight information, ensuring service quality, ensuring competency in safety and security among cabin crew, and reporting crew or passenger issues.

On May 19, 2007, at Sydney Airport, some Cathay crew members including Lamadrid were caught with goods after disembarking from flight CX 139.
Customer Officer Mary Greiss confiscated a 1.5-liter Evian water bottle and magazines from Lamadrid, recorded on her passport.
The confiscated items were turned over to Cathay’s Airport Services Manager, Brian Davis.

On May 21, 2007, Lamadrid and co-employee Yvette Tsang pleaded with Davis not to report the incident, citing their 17 years of service, but Davis confirmed the report was sent to Hong Kong.
Cathay on May 22, 2007 requested Lamadrid to submit a written explanation and show cause why disciplinary action should not be imposed for unauthorized removal of company property—a serious misconduct.
On May 28, 2007, Lamadrid denied the allegations, claiming the magazine was not company property and that another crew member admitted to taking the other items.
Cathay again requested explanation on June 21, 2007; Lamadrid replied on June 23, stating the Evian water was her own and denied serious misconduct, demanding preservation of items and a fair investigation.

On July 10, 2007, Cathay terminated Lamadrid for serious misconduct due to removal of company property without authorization, citing loss of trust and confidence.
Lamadrid filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against Cathay and Vivian Lo.
Lamadrid claimed no just cause for dismissal, alleged she bought the Evian water in Hong Kong, and contended the penalty was too harsh given her 17 years of untarnished service.

Cathay and Lo argued lack of jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and maintained compliance with substantive and procedural due process. They asserted Lamadrid’s position was imbued with trust and confidence, justifying termination.
The Labor Arbiter (April 29, 2009) ruled jurisdiction proper, found Lamadrid was not a managerial employee, and ruled dismissal too harsh, awarding separation pay instead of reinstatement.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. Lamadrid sought reinstatement and damages; respondents questioned jurisdiction, claimed managerial status of Lamadrid, and justified dismissal.
The NLRC (February 24, 2010) sustained jurisdiction under RA 8042, ruled dismissal too harsh, ordered reinstatement with backwages, denied damages, and required deducting benefits already received.
Cathay’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the NLRC (April 20, 2010).
Cathay petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and injunctive relief, arguing lack of jurisdiction, proving pilferage and untrustworthiness, and strained employer-employee relations precluding reinstatement.

CA (September 16, 2011) reversed NLRC and Labor Arbiter decisions, dismissed Lamadrid’s complaint for illegal dismissal, and ruled Cathay validly terminated employment for theft and dishonesty.
CA upheld jurisdiction under the Labor Code, RA 8042, and its implementing rules.
CA found theft of company property proven and dismissal justified regardless of the value of property taken.
CA denied Lamadrid’s Motion for Reconsideration (February 17, 2012).

Lamadrid filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, contesting CA’s reversal and asserting illegal dismissal.
Petitioner contended insufficient proof of pilferage, lack of procedural due process, non-application of loss of trust doctrine, and non-managerial status.
Respondents maintained Lamadrid had permanent residency in Hong Kong, had custody and control of valuable company property, dismissal was justified by pilferage and loss of trust, and procedural due process was observed.
Respondents pointed to company disciplinary policy allowing summary dismissal for dishonesty and pilferage.
Respondents noted Lamadrid was paid full retirement benefits and long service payment amounting to HK$622,077.50.

Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal complaint of Lamadrid.
Whether Lamadrid’s position as Senior Purser is a position imbued with trust and confidence justifying dismissal for loss of trust.
Whether there was substantial evidence that Lamadrid committed serious misconduct by pilfering company property.
Whether the penalty of dismissal was commensurate with the infraction committed by Lamadrid.
Whether Lamadrid was denied procedural due process in her dismissal.