G.R. No. 233314 - Brazil vs. STI Education Service Group, Inc.

Petitioner Virginia G. Ramoran began her employment with Jardine CMG Life Insurance Company, Inc. on June 6, 1976 as an accounting clerk.
Over the years, she advanced in rank, reaching the position of junior accountant by 1994.
Her immediate supervisor was Antonio Robles, then Manager of the Accounting Department.

On December 7, 1993, Petitioner submitted an OT authorization slip dated December 6, 1993, which purportedly covered overtime work performed on November 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 24, 1993.

The company’s procedure required that each OT slip pertain to only one date and include specific procedural steps (e.g., submission by the department supervisor to the guard by 5:00 o’clock, and thereafter from the guard to HRD by 9:00 o’clock the next morning).
The December 6 slip, although prepared on the same day, covered multiple dates and was signed by the security guard on December 7, thereby violating the stipulated guidelines.

On December 15, 1993, a second OT authorization slip was received, dated December 14, 1993, covering alleged overtime on December 13 and 14, 1993.

This slip presented evidence of tampering, as alterations were noted—specifically, the intercalation of “13 &” prior to “14, 1993” and cancellations without proper initials by the approving authority.
These irregularities cast doubt on the authenticity of the OT slip, calling into question the overtime work actually rendered and the adherence to procedural requirements.

On December 18, 1993, HRD personnel (an HRD Clerk and an HRD Assistant) identified irregularities during post-audit procedures on the payroll payments linked to the OT authorization slips.
The anomalies, including alterations on the slip entries (e.g., additional dates and unauthorized changes), prompted internal scrutiny and led to notifying higher management.
A memorandum issued by HRD Manager Norman T. Tamayo on January 4, 1994, brought the misconduct to the attention of supervisor Robles, who consistently denied authorizing the overtime work as recorded.

An administrative investigation was conducted on February 1 and February 8, 1994.

The proceedings involved petitioner, HRD representatives (including Ms. Aida N. Hornilla and Mr. Tamayo), her immediate supervisor Robles, and representatives of the Jardine union.
During the sessions, petitioner explained she submitted the OT slips belatedly to clear a work backlog following a prior five-day suspension, though she denied any wrongful intention.
Supervisor Robles, however, firmly denied signing the OT authorization slips in question or authorizing alleged overtime work on the disputed dates.

On April 4, 1994, based on the administrative findings and the violation of Rule 32 of the Company Rules and Regulations, petitioner was terminated for falsifying company records.

The Jardine union, representing a group of employees, challenged the termination and staged a strike beginning on July 6, 1994.
Jardine subsequently initiated legal actions:

Filed a complaint with the Arbitration Board of the NLRC (docketed NLRC NCR Case No. 07-05244-94) seeking the declaration of the strike as illegal and the dismissal of individual respondents for participation therein.
Instituted criminal proceedings (Criminal Cases Nos. 163751 and 163752) against petitioner for violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on falsification.

Concurrently, a Compromise Agreement was reached on July 22, 1994 between respondent and the Jardine union, stipulating that the legality of petitioner’s termination be subjected to voluntary arbitration.
Arbitration Proceedings:

Position papers were exchanged in the arbitration conferences held on May 24, 1995 and June 6, 1995.
The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, comprising Atty. Sixto A. Martinez, Jr. (Chairman), Atty. Efren P. Aranzamendez (representing the union), and Atty. Josephus B. Jimenez (representing respondent), rendered a decision on December 28, 1995, which upheld the termination and denied petitioner's claim for moral and exemplary damages.

Criminal proceedings resulted in a conviction in one case and acquittal in the other, though petitioner later succeeded in reversing one conviction at the Regional Trial Court.
Believing that her acquittal might invalidate the panel’s decision, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which was denied in resolutions on August 27, 1997, and after a motion for reconsideration on December 22, 1997.
The petition for review on certiorari now before the Supreme Court challenges these decisions based on several alleged errors.

Whether a petition for review under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is a proper remedy when the right to appeal is already lost due to the alleged gross negligence of counsel.

Whether it was proper for the Court of Appeals to decide the case on its merits without requiring the respondents to comment on petitioner’s Rule 65 petition.

Whether the selection and actions of the arbitrator panel violated the fundamental requirements of integrity, independence, and impartiality.
Whether petitioner was deprived of her right to due process given her participation and the nature of the proceedings before the panel.

Whether the appellate court erred by placing more importance on procedural technicalities than on the substantive justice and equity that the rules of procedure are meant to secure.