Case Digest (G.R. No. 169523)
Facts:
Lima Land, Inc., Leandro Javier, Sylvia Duque, and Premy Ann Beloy v. Marlyn Cuevas, G.R. No. 169523, June 16, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are Lima Land, Inc. (employer) and three of its officers; respondent Marlyn G. Cuevas was Lima’s Finance and Administration Manager. In 1996 Lima entered into "arriendo" lease contracts for harvests whose collections were supervised at the Batangas estate by Operations and Estate Manager Jonas Senia, assisted by site personnel. Collections were remitted to Lima’s head office in Makati and recorded as company income.
In February 2000 irregularities in the arriendo collections were discovered. An investigating panel interviewed employees, including respondent, and found that remittances ceased after September 1, 1999 despite receipts showing payments to site assistants. The panel reported possible fraud and irregular disbursements; respondent was served a notice to explain and placed under preventive suspension on May 22, 2002, and ordered to turn over company documents and keys.
On May 23, 2002 petitioners served a second notice charging respondent with: (1) failure to exercise reasonable diligence regarding unremitted arriendo collections; (2) approving a false reimbursement request; and (3) failure to institute sufficient accounting standards. A hearing was set May 24, 2002; respondent failed to appear but was allowed until May 30 to reply, requested postponement to June 5, and ultimately submitted a written reply on June 4. By letter dated June 21, 2002 petitioners dismissed respondent effective May 22, 2002.
Respondent filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter on July 3, 2002 for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and for unpaid benefits; the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on March 27, 2003 except for an award of pro rata 13th month pay of P18,664.58. Respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On December 30, 2003 the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declared the suspension and dismissal illegal, ordered reinstatement with full backwages (or separation pay if reinstatement wasn’t possible), payment of benefits and attorney’s fees; its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration followed on February 27, 2004.
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) claiming grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC; the CA rendered a decision on January 26, 20...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners afford respondent procedural due process prior to dismissal?
- Was respondent validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence under the Labo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)