Case Digest (G.R. No. 160982)
Facts:
Manila Jockey Club, Inc. (MJCI) employed Aimee O. Trajano as a selling teller of betting tickets since November 1989. On April 25, 1998, Trajano cancelled a bettor’s winning daily-double bet ticket worth P2,000.00 after receiving a request, later discovering that the cancelled ticket belonged to a different bettor (who subsequently lost Race 15); Trajano maintained the cancellation resulted from an honest mistake. MJCI placed her under preventive suspension and, after about a month, dismissed her. Trajano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the DOLE, which the Labor Arbiter dismissed; the NLRC reversed and ordered reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages equivalent to at least six months, and the CA sustained the NLRC in certiorari. MJCI appealed to the Supreme Court.Issues:
- Whether MJCI had just cause to dismiss Trajano.
- Whether MJCI complied with the due process requirements for terminating Trajano.
Ruling:
The appeal lacked merit. Th Case Digest (G.R. No. 160982)
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- Manila Jockey Club, Inc. (MJCI) employed Aimee O. Trajano (Trajano) as a selling teller of betting tickets starting November 1989.
- On April 25, 1998, Trajano reported for work.
- Two regular bettors gave Trajano their respective lists of bets (*rota*) and money for the bets for Race 14 at around 7:15 p.m.
- The bettors suddenly left; Trajano entered the bets in the selling machine and segregated the tickets for pick up upon the bettors’ return.
- Before closing time, the “requesting bettor” returned and asked Trajano to cancel one of his bets worth P2,000.00.
- Trajano was also operating the negative machine that day and, upon the requesting bettor’s request, immediately cancelled the bet as requested.
- Trajano gave the remaining tickets and the P2,000.00 amount pertaining to the cancelled bet to the requesting bettor.
- After Race 14 ended, Trajano counted the bets and sold tickets and found them balanced.
- Trajano later saw the receipt for the cancelled ticket in her drawer, but the cancelled ticket was not in the drawer.
- Trajano thought she could have given the cancelled ticket to the requesting bettor and searched for him but could not find him.
- Trajano remembered that there had been two bettors who earlier left their bets with her.
- Trajano went to the “second bettor” to counter-check the serial number by showing him the receipt for the cancelled ticket.
- The second bettor returned to Trajano and told her that it was one of his bets that had been cancelled, not the requesting bettor’s bet.
- The cancelled bet was the same bet that won Race 14.
- Because the bet was for a daily double, the second bettor only needed to win Race 15 to claim dividends.
- Trajano realized her mistake, told the second bettor the cancellation was not intentional, and offered to personally pay dividends if the second bettor won Race 15.
- The second bettor accepted and, when Race 15 ended, the second bettor lost.
- Trajano was therefore relieved of any obligation to pay winnings.
- Preventive suspension and termination
- After the races, a reliever-supervisor approached Trajano and required her to submit a written explanation about the ticket cancellation incident.
- On April 26, 1998, Trajano submitted a handwritten explanation to Atty. Joey R. Galit, Assistant Racing Supervisor.
- Trajano continued working as a selling teller after submitting the explanation.
- Later on April 26, 1998, Trajano received an inter-office correspondence signed by Atty. Galit placing her under preventive suspension effective April 28, 1998, for an unstated period.
- After thirty days of suspension, Trajano reported for work but was no longer admitted.
- Trajano learned that she had been dismissed when she read a copy of an inter-office correspondence about her termination posted in a selling station of MJCI.
- Labor dispute and parties’ positions
- Trajano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against MJCI in the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
- Trajano alleged her dismissal was not based on any of the grounds enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
- Trajano claimed that her unauthorized cancellation of a ticket had no basis because she was the negative machine operator with authority to cancel tickets as requested.
- Trajano maintained the cancellation resulted from an honest mistake and did not amount to dishonesty.
- Trajano alleged lack of due process because she was not aware of any justifiable cause, and she was not notified or furnished a copy of the notice of dismissal.
- Trajano asserted that MJCI only posted copies of the notice in selling stations, which was intended to embarrass and humiliate her.
- Trajano also claimed MJCI acted with evident bad faith and malice.
- Trajano prayed for reinstatement to her former position without loss of seniority rights; payment of backwages until full reinstatement; and moral and exemplary damages of P180,000.00 plus attorney’s fees of 10% of the total award.
- MJCI responded that on April 25, 1998 it received a letter from Jun Carpio, Field Officer of the Games and Amusement Board, calling attention to a complaint against Trajano by a bettor named Tito concerning cancellation of a winning ticket (Race 14).
- MJCI claimed it acted by placing Trajano under preventive suspension after she submitted a written explanation and after a preliminary investigation.
- MJCI alleged a clarificatory meeting was held on June 5, 1998 in the presence of MJCI Raceday Union President Miguel Altonaga.
- MJCI asserted it terminated her services on the next day for cause due to unauthorized cancellation of ticket.
- MJCI argued the dismissal was justified as a serious violation of company policy amounting to dishonesty.
- MJCI invoked Article 282 of the Labor Code, specifically paragraph (a) on serious misconduct or willful disobedience and paragraph (b) on gross and habitual neglect of duty.
- MJCI claimed Trajano’s admissions in her written explanation proved her participation in unauthorized cancellation.
- MJCI claimed Trajano was afforded due process because she had a chance to submit written explanation and was apprised of the charges, and she was accompanied by union leaders during preliminary investigation.
- MJCI also invoked that non-appeal of the termination decision showed MJCI and the union leaders believed in the merit of terminating her.
- Rulings of labor tribunals and the CA
- Labor Arbiter (April 23, 1999)
- The Labor...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Just cause for dismissal
- Whether MJCI proved just cause, including whether Trajano’s act warranted dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence or other grounds under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
- Whether the cancellation of the ticket was intentional, knowing, and purposeful such that it constituted willful breach of trust, serious misconduct, willful disobedience, or gross and habitual neglect.
- Compliance with due process
- Whether MJCI complied with the procedural requirements for termination based on just causes under Section 2(d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code.
- Whether MJCI’s notice practice, including posting notic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)