Case Digest (G.R. No. 131405)
Facts:
Leilani Mendoza v. National Labor Relations Commission and Asian Land Strategies Corporation, G.R. No. 131405, July 20, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Leilani Mendoza (petitioner) was employed by Asian Land Strategies Corporation (private respondent) beginning in late April 1994 and was appointed finance manager, a position involving custody and disbursement of company funds. On May–June 1995 several sales agents and division heads complained that commissions due them were being delayed or released to others unless they paid petitioner a cut; another employee alleged irregular handling of a cash advance. The company president furnished Mendoza copies of complaints and notices (June 2 and June 24, 1995) and asked her to answer; Mendoza failed to file a reply and stopped reporting for work on June 10, 1995. The company thereafter considered her resigned (effective June 15) and notified her; Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on June 23, 1995.
At the administrative level, Labor Arbiter Dominador B. Saludares issued a decision dated May 17, 1996 in favor of Mendoza, awarding one month separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (P8,000), back wages (P92,000) from June 16, 1995 to the time of the decision, moral damages (P50,000) and attorney’s fees (P15,000). The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Third Division, reversed by Decision dated February 19, 1997, dismissing Mendoza’s complaint for lack of merit; reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated September 19, 1997. The NLRC relied on the complaints, notices, affidavits and certain vouchers, concluding Mendoza’s position was fiduciary and that her failure to answer and absence warranted loss of trust and consideration as resignation.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the S...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court review the NLRC’s factual findings in this certiorari petition?
- Did petitioner abandon her post?
- Was petitioner validly dismissed for loss of trust and breach of fid...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)