Title
Bance vs. University of St. Anthony
Case
G.R. No. 202724
Decision Date
Feb 3, 2021
Employees of University of St. Antonio filed illegal dismissal claims; resignations deemed voluntary, Bance’s dismissal valid but lacked due process, reimbursement issue moot.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202724)

Factual Antecedents

In June 2006, the University noticed anomalies in its Accounting Office, prompting Atty. Ortega to hire an external auditor in January 2007. An audit revealed a substantial cash shortage of ₱1,239,856.25, which triggered further investigations. Lobetania, who was responsible for the cash vault, acknowledged failing to deposit the amount and subsequently paid it back in installments. On the other hand, Bance, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre were implicated in a fraudulent scheme enrolling unqualified individuals for discounts intended for legitimate students. Following investigations, they were informed by Atty. Ortega of their impending dismissal, which was formalized in a memo dated December 22, 2007, effective January 1, 2008.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The Labor Arbiter ruled on October 1, 2008, in favor of the petitioners, deeming their dismissal illegal due to a lack of just cause and failure to observe procedural due process. The Arbiter ordered their reinstatement and payment of back wages and other claims, finding that the University had not presented sufficient evidence to justify the terminations.

National Labor Relations Commission's Ruling

The NLRC reversed the Arbiter's decision on September 30, 2009. It ruled that the petitioners had not been illegally dismissed, citing that the ones who resigned did so voluntarily and thereby severed their employment relationships prior to their formal dismissals. The NLRC also noted that while Bance's conduct warranted dismissal for just cause based on misconduct, procedural due process had not been followed, resulting in nominal damages being awarded.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The CA upheld the NLRC's decision on April 17, 2012, modifying it only to eliminate the nominal damages previously awarded to Bance, holding that the procedural and substantive due process were satisfied in both Lobetania and Bance's terminations due to their misconduct. It found the dismissals justifiable due to the fraudulent activities.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision with modifications, specifically reinstating the award of nominal damages to Bance. The Court acknowledged that the voluntary resignation of Dimaiwat, Velasco, Aguirre, and Lobetania rendered their complaints for illegal dismissal without basis. It found Bance's dismissal valid based on fraud and willful breach of trust, but also ruled that procedural due process was not followed, awarding her ₱30,000 in nominal damages.

Procedural and Substantive Due Process

The Supreme Court clarified the importance of adhering to procedural due process in dismissals, emphasizing that an employer must issue two notices: one detailing the charges and another confirming the termination after considering all relevant circumstances. The Court de

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.