G.R. No. 208535 - Leo's Restaurant and Bar Cafe vs. Densing

Respondent, Laarne C. Bensing, was employed by Kimwa Construction & Development Corporation (Kimwa) as a liaison officer beginning January 2, 2002.
Kimwa allegedly operated Leo’s Restaurant and Bar Café and the Mountain Suite Business Apartelle.
On July 4, 2005, while still with Kimwa, respondent was appointed as Administrative Officer/HR Head of the Restobar and the Apartelle with a monthly salary of P15,000.00, effective October 18, 2005.
Leo Y. Lua, who managed the establishments, exercised significant control and functioned in a dual capacity as both manager and de facto owner alongside Amelia Lua.

On December 30, 2005, respondent received a Memorandum from Leo instructing her to explain the circumstances surrounding an agreement with Pepsi Products Philippines, Inc. (Pepsi) and the benefits derived therefrom.
Respondent claimed that on October 24, 2005, Leo had verbally authorized her, in the presence of Pepsi Sales Manager Jovenal Ablanque, to sign the contract on behalf of the Restobar.
Subsequent Memoranda from Leo raised issues not only on the contract signing but also on charges of:

Falsely charging personal food expenses to the Restobar;
Failing to account for a certain quantity of Pepsi products, with discrepancies noted in the delivery – originally claimed as 67 cases but later clarified by Pepsi to be 20 cases following the opening donation of 10 cases.

Respondent maintained that she acted in good faith, that she received no personal benefit from the contract, and that the Pepsi products were intended for the establishment.

Between December 30, 2005, and January 4, 2006, several Memoranda were issued by Leo questioning respondent’s actions regarding:

Respondent provided explanations in her Answer and further memoranda, asserting that:

The Pepsi contract was signed under Leo’s verbal authorization;
The alleged discrepancies regarding the Pepsi donation were resolved when Pepsi clarified the actual volumes delivered;
The food expense charge was related to her managerial duties.

Citing a loss of trust and confidence, Leo terminated respondent on January 12, 2006 (with the termination effective on January 15, 2006).

Respondent filed an Amended Complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, non-payment of benefits (including 13th month pay and separation pay), moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against Kimwa, Leo, Amelia, and the establishments.
The Executive Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision on November 20, 2007:

Dismissing the complaint for lack of merit regarding some allegations;
However, ordering petitioners to pay respondent P15,000.00 as separation pay on the basis that the Pepsi contract was entered in good faith.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Resolution on November 28, 2008, finding respondent’s dismissal illegal and ordering:

On June 4, 2009, the NLRC reversed its earlier finding in a Motion for Reconsideration, holding that:

Respondent lacked authority to sign contracts for the Restobar;
Wrongfully charging food expenses and failing to account for Pepsi products were sufficient grounds for dismissal.

The NLRC’s reversal was itself set aside on July 31, 2009, and later the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 27, 2012, reinstated the November 28, 2008 NLRC Resolution.
Petitioners (Kimwa, Leo, Amelia) moved for reconsideration before the CA, which was denied on July 12, 2013.
Petitioners filed the present Petition for Review en Certiorari challenging the CA Decision on various grounds including the ownership of the establishments and the standard for dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence.

Whether respondent was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
Whether the dismissal was based on clearly established facts of willful breach of trust.

Whether respondent had the implicit or express authority to sign the Pepsi contract on behalf of the Restobar.
Whether signing the contract, even if unauthorized by formal rules, was within the scope of her managerial duties.

Whether petitioners (Kimwa, Leo, and Amelia) observed the required procedural due process in dismissing respondent.
Whether the sequence of memoranda and internal explanations provided respondent a fair opportunity to be heard.

Whether the grant of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, against petitioners is justified given the conduct surrounding respondent’s dismissal.
Whether the dismissal was undertaken in bad faith or with malicious intent.