Case Digest (G.R. No. 114313)
Facts:
MGG Marine Services, Inc. and/or Doroteo C. Garlan and Cesar Rotilo, petitioners, filed a petition in G.R. No. 114313; the case was decided by the Supreme Court En Banc on July 29, 1996, with Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. The petition assailed a Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which had affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s December 21, 1992 decision in favor of private respondent Elizabeth A. Molina.Elizabeth A. Molina began working for MGG on July 1, 1988 and by March 1990 was serving as financial officer and was appointed comptroller with authority to encash certain checks to pay corporate obligations pursuant to instructions from senior management. Before senior officers left for the United States in March 1990, they left 79 checks (16 blank, 63 with amounts) and corresponding vouchers; Molina was told to fill in amounts on the 16 blank checks only as specified in the vouchers and to pay only the creditors listed. The company’s bank balance was then about P1.5 million; vouchers corresponding to the 16 blank checks totaled about P224,131.50.
When management returned in June 1990 they found the company’s deposits reduced to P5,720.00. Molina admitted she filled higher amounts on the blank checks and paid some creditors not specified in the vouchers, resulting in aggregate withdrawals of about P1,515,823.00. MGG filed criminal estafa charges (later dismissed) and terminated Molina on November 12, 1990 for loss of trust and confidence. Molina filed for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter (Executive Labor Arbiter Valentin C. Guanio) on December 21, 1992 ruled Molina’s dismissal illegal, awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (strained relations), thirteenth month pay, overtime pay, unpaid salary, moral damages (P50,000) and attorneys’ fees. The NLRC First Division, by Resolution...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was there lawful cause for the dismissal of private respondent Elizabeth A. Molina?
- Did petitioners observe the procedural requirements (due process) for valid dismissal?
- Were petitioners accorded due process before the Labor Arbiter when the case was considered submitted despite their request to pres...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)