Title
Bluer than Blue Joint Ventures Co. vs. Esteban
Case
G.R. No. 192582
Decision Date
Apr 7, 2014
Employee dismissed for unauthorized POS access; court ruled termination disproportionate, upheld suspension, invalidated wage deduction, citing lack of intent to defraud and disproportionate penalty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192582)

Facts of the Case

Glyza Esteban was employed as a Sales Clerk at Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Company from January 2004. Beginning in 2006, she was assigned to the EGG boutique located in SM City Marilao, Bulacan. Her primary duties included customer service, inventory management, and cashiering functions. In November 2006, an investigation revealed that Esteban shared a universal password for the company’s point-of-sale (POS) system with other employees, which allowed unauthorized access. Following this, Esteban was temporarily suspended and later terminated for loss of trust and confidence. She received her final pay, minus a deduction for inventory discrepancies, after signing a quitclaim and release.

Legal Proceedings

Esteban filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and related claims, which the Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor on September 28, 2007, declaring her dismissal illegal and awarding her separation pay, back wages, and attorney’s fees. The petitioner appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the Labor Arbiter's ruling on September 23, 2008, stating insufficient grounds for illegal dismissal and ordering a refund of the salary deduction for inventory variances. Esteban then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, modifying the separation pay award.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The petitioner contested the CA’s ruling, arguing that it had just cause to dismiss Esteban based on loss of trust and confidence. They asserted that Esteban's position involved trust due to her responsibilities and that her unauthorized use of the password justified her termination. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that the CA mishandled the principle of proportionality regarding disciplinary actions and did not acknowledge the legality of the wage deductions made.

Court Ruling on Dismissal

The Court ruled in favor of Esteban, asserting that she was a rank-and-file employee who did not occupy a position of trust and confidence. The findings indicated that her actual role involved tasks typical of sales clerks rather than roles requiring high trust. The Court emphasized that an individual’s classification as occupying such a position cannot solely rely on job titles but must consider the actual duties performed. Esteban's actions, though unauthorized, did not demonstrate a willful breach of trust warranting dismissal.

Assessment of Preventive Suspension

Although the petitioner was entitled to impose preventive suspension during the investigation into Esteban's suspected misconduct, the Court concurred with the CA's ruling that her suspension was unwarranted in this context. The acts leading to her dismissal occurred almost a year prior but had not caused demonstrable harm to t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.