G.R. No. 187232 - Mendoza vs. HMS Credit Corp.

Petitioner Zenaida D. Mendoza was employed by HMS Credit Corporation as its Chief Accountant beginning on August 1, 1999.
During her employment with HMS Credit, Mendoza also rendered services to three other companies within the Honda Motor Sports Group (HMS Group):

Respondents in the case include HMS Credit Corporation, Honda Motor Sports Corporation, Beta Motor Trading Incorporated, and Jianshe Cycle World Incorporated; key officers such as Luisa B. Diego in her capacity as Managing Director and Felipe R. Diego to whom Mendoza directly reported are also involved.

On April 11, 2002, following the submission of audited financial statements for the three companies, Mendoza was summoned by Felipe R. Diego and was informed of the termination of her employment.
Mendoza was instructed to leave the premises immediately without being allowed to collect her personal belongings.
Subsequent attempts by Mendoza to re-enter the office building on April 13 and later in the same month were rebuffed by security personnel citing instructions from respondents.

Mendoza claimed she was terminated without due process and contended that she was wrongfully prevented from collecting her belongings and re-entering the premises.
Respondents alleged that Mendoza misrepresented her qualifications by falsely claiming to be a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and that she concealed critical information regarding the resignation and subsequent transfer of two HMS Group officers.
They also contended that Mendoza engaged in conduct that amounted to aiding a competitor, thus breaching the trust reposed in her—which is especially significant given her managerial status.

On April 12, 2002, after her confrontation with respondents over her alleged misrepresentations, it was purported that she proposed an amount corresponding to her separation benefits and received P30,000 as payment for an external auditor.
Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries, 13th month pay, and mid-year bonus with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on April 30, 2002.
The Labor Arbiter initially ruled on January 28, 2003 that Mendoza was illegally dismissed for failure to observe due process, ordering respondents to pay separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees totaling over P1,000,000.
Respondents appealed the decision with a reduced appeal bond based on alleged business losses, and after some procedural developments at the NLRC, the decision was reversed on September 30, 2008, finding that there was no summary dismissal but rather a voluntary resignation effected via an amicable settlement.
The Court of Appeals later affirmed the NLRC ruling, noting that respondents’ act of paying P30,000 and the subsequent barring of Mendoza from the premises were inconsistent with a true dismissal.

Mendoza subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging:

The timeliness of respondents’ appeal bond filing under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
The determination that her termination was not an illegal dismissal, contending that it was in fact executed without proper due process.

Whether respondents filed their appeal bond in accordance with Article 223 of the Labor Code, given that they tendered a reduced amount citing business losses and subsequently complied with the NLRC’s directive for the differential amount.
Whether substantial compliance with the procedural requirements under Article 223 is sufficient to deem the appeal timely, as interpreted in prior decisions such as Pasig Cylinder v. Rollo and Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC.

Whether Mendoza’s termination amounted to illegal dismissal due to the employer’s failure to observe the two-notice rule—that is, the failure to:

Inform her of the specific grounds for dismissal (loss of trust due to misrepresentation and breach of duty).
Allow her an opportunity to be heard before effecting the termination.

Whether the evidence supports that Mendoza voluntarily resigned in view of an amicable settlement or that her departure was effectively forced without a clear manifestation of intent to resign.
Whether the breach of trust based on her misrepresentation and other alleged misconduct, particularly as a managerial employee, justified a termination notwithstanding any irregularities in procedure.