Case Digest (G.R. No. 192297)
Facts:
Supra Multi-Services, Inc., Jesus Tambunting, Jr., and Rita Claire T. Dabu v. Lanie M. Labitigan, G.R. No. 192297, August 03, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo-de Castro, J., writing for the Court.Supra Multi-Services, Inc. (SMSI) is a manpower services corporation; Jesus S. Tambunting, Jr. and Rita Claire T. Dabu are its President and Vice‑President for Administration respectively. Lanie M. Labitigan was hired by SMSI on March 13, 1994 and rose to the position of Accounting Supervisor, earning about P13,000.00 per month at the time of dismissal on December 21, 2005.
The dispute arose when respondent Labitigan, who prepared and approved payrolls, granted herself a pro‑rated Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA) beginning November 2002 after Wage Order Nos. NCR‑09 and NCR‑10 issued ECOLA adjustments. Petitioners later issued a Notice of Personnel Action (August 22, 2005) cancelling her ECOLA; after what petitioners characterized as respondent’s refusal to heed directives and other alleged irregularities, SMSI placed her on preventive suspension (December 14, 2005), held an administrative hearing (December 19, 2005), and terminated her effective December 21, 2005 citing insubordination and willful breach of trust. Petitioners also alleged unpaid cash advances and other past infractions in her employment record.
On June 15, 2006 respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement, backwages, separation pay and other reliefs before the Labor Arbiter (NLRC‑NCR Case No. 00‑06‑05066‑06). The Labor Arbiter (Feb. 19, 2007) found dismissal too harsh given the unsettled wage‑distortion question and ordered separation pay of one month's salary per year of service (P169,000.00). The NLRC initially dismissed petitioners’ appeal for failure to submit a certificate of non‑forum shopping but, after reconsideration, gave due course and reversed the Labor Arbiter in a Decision dated January 31, 2008, finding sufficient cause (breach of trust) to dismiss respondent; the NLRC denied reconsideration (Resolution Mar. 27, 2008).
Respondent petitioned the Court of Appeals via Rule 65 certiorari (CA‑G.R. SP No. 103847). The Court of Appeals (Decision Feb. 22, 2010) held that petitioners observed procedural due process and that respondent—an Accounting Supervisor—committed breach of trust, but it found dismissal too harsh considering her long service and the deduction of ECOLA from her final pay; it modified the NLRC decision by ordering separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and denying backwages and damages. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking modification of the CA decision insofar as it awarded separation pay; they also sought a ruling that respondent must repay ECOLA from 2001–2005, collection of cash advances, and damages.
The Supreme Court resolved the Rule 45 petition: it affirmed the NLRC’s dismissal of responde...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that respondent’s commission of breach of trust did not merit dismissal?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding separation pay to re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)