Case Digest (G.R. No. 177937)
Facts:
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation and/or Jess Manuel, petitioners, v. Irene R. Ranchez, respondent, G.R. No. 177937, November 28, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Irene R. Ranchez was engaged by petitioner Robinsons Supermarket as a cashier on a probationary basis from October 15, 1997 to March 14, 1998, after six weeks of training. On October 30, 1997, she reported to her supervisor that P20,299.00 was missing from the company locker where she had placed it. Operations Manager Jess Manuel ordered security guards to strip-search respondent and her belongings; the search produced nothing. Instead of conducting an internal administrative inquiry, petitioners reported the incident to the police and sought an inquest at the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office.
An information for Qualified Theft was filed on November 5, 1997; respondent spent about two weeks in jail for failure to immediately post P40,000 bail. On November 25, 1997 she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages. Petitioners mailed a notice of termination/expiration of probation dated March 9, 1998, effective March 14, 1998.
The Labor Arbiter (August 10, 1998) dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint for lack of merit but ordered petitioners to accept complainant “to her former or equivalent work.” The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed on October 20, 2003, holding that respondent was denied due process, that the strip-search and detention amounted to constructive dismissal effective October 30, 1997, and ordering reinstatement with backwages from the date of constructive dismissal. The NLRC denied reconsideration on July 21, 2005.
Petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals (Rule 65), which on August 29, 2006 affirmed the NLRC decision with modification: if reinstatement was no longer possible, petitioners were to pay separation pay equivalent to one month and backwages until finality. The CA denied reconsideration on May 16, 2007. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.
Petitioners argued that respondent was only a probationary employee whose probation lapsed on March 14, 1998, making reinstatement moot, and that the alleged offense would have milita...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was respondent illegally (constructively) terminated from employment by petitioners? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)