G.R. No. L-10134 - Exconde vs. Capuno

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10134)

Background and Employment History

Josephine Casco was employed by Capitol Medical Center starting as a Staff Nurse in 1984 and was promoted through various supervisory positions to Nurse Supervisor of the Operating Room. Her job included supervision and management of personnel and equipment within the Operating and Recovery Rooms, with accountabilities for losses and equipment malfunction.

Incident and Allegations Leading to Termination

Several medical equipment, including vaporizers, monitors, and pulse oximeters, were found missing during a calibration audit conducted in early 2008. Upon discovery, an incident report was filed by Casco acknowledging the missing equipment but asserting her inability to prevent the theft due to access difficulties and insufficient security measures instituted by the hospital. A formal investigation culminated in a finding of gross negligence against Casco, leading to her dismissal on December 18, 2008, for failing to secure the accountable equipment, resulting in a financial loss of approximately PHP 2.9 million.

Procedural History and Initial Rulings

Casco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC, which the Labor Arbiter (LA) decided in her favor, ruling that she was not guilty of gross negligence nor habitually neglectful of duties, and ordered her reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC, however, reversed the Arbiter's decision, finding Casco liable for gross negligence and dismissing her complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision, holding that as Nurse Supervisor, Casco held a position of trust and that her neglect in securing equipment constituted gross negligence and loss of trust and confidence.

Issues on Appeal

Casco contended that:

The NLRC and CA misappreciated the facts and law in upholding her dismissal.
The care and custody of the equipment was not her primary duty.
She regularly conducted inventories and advocated security enhancements.
Her dismissal was based on mere negligence, not gross negligence or willful misconduct.
The penalty of dismissal was not prescribed for the offense under the employer’s rules.

Respondents argued that Casco failed in her supervisory duties, did not properly secure equipment, and that her long tenure aggravated, rather than mitigated, her negligence.

Standard of Review and Jurisprudential Framework

The Supreme Court clarified that in Rule 45 petitions on certiorari reviewing CA decisions, only questions of law may generally be reviewed. However, exception is recognized when there are contradictory factual findings between labor tribunals and the CA, permitting a review of facts to determine if there was grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. Grave abuse of discretion involves capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment.

Analysis on Gross and Habitual Negligence

Gross negligence denotes a complete disregard or failure to exercise even slight diligence, while habitual neglect involves repeated failure over time. The burden of proof to justify dismissal lies with the employer who must demonstrate valid cause with substantial evidence. In this case, the Court found that respondents failed to prove that Casco was made custodian of the missing equipment or that her job description encompassed its safekeeping.

Casco’s job description entailed supervision and management of nurses, accountability for equipment malfunction (which meant prompt reporting, not custodianship), performing inventories, and monitoring supplies. There was no evidence showing she was given control or exclusive responsibility over the physical custody of the hospital property. The Court emphasized that accountability for losses or equipment malfunction does not necessarily equate to custodianship.

Furthermore, the Court analyzed that Casco’s failure to prevent the loss was not proven to be willful or reckless. The operating room’s accessibility was outside her control, and no standards or security protocols were provided by the hospital that she neglected to enforce. Additionally, the responsibility to investigate or pursue recovery of the lost equipment lies with the employer, not the employee. Consequently, Casco was not guilty of gross or habitual negligence.

Analysis on Loss of Trust and Confidence

Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal applies primarily to employees holding positions of trust involving confidential or managerial responsibilities or handling significant assets. Although being a Nurse Supervisor implied a managerial role, dismissal on this ground requires at least reasonable basis to believe the employee is unworthy of trust due to participation in misconduct.

The Court held that the dismissal on this ground was untenable because:

Casco was not shown to h

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-10134)

Facts and Procedural Background

Petitioner Josephine Casco worked for Capitol Medical Center (CAPITOL), a private hospital, starting March 29, 1984, initially as a Staff Nurse and eventually promoted to Nurse Supervisor of the Operating Room by September 3, 2002.
Her job as Nurse Supervisor included supervising nurses/services at the Operating and Recovery Room, personnel management, decision-making on problems, and accountability for losses, equipment malfunction, breakage, patients, and personnel.
Between June 2006 and July 2006, CAPITOL issued several equipment units to petitioner’s custody, including vaporizers, patient monitors, and pulse oximeters.
On January 25, 2008, during equipment calibration, several equipment pieces were discovered missing.
Petitioner filed an incident report on January 31, 2007, acknowledging missing equipment items in the Operating Complex.
CAPITOL issued a First Notice of Investigation on February 7, 2008, for gross negligence.
Petitioner denied any willful negligence, describing the incident as beyond her control due to unrestricted access to machine rooms, and citing lack of adequate security measures.
On December 18, 2008, CAPITOL dismissed petitioner for gross negligence resulting in loss of equipment valued at approximately Php 2.9 million.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Labor Arbiter ruled in petitioner’s favor, ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages on October 14, 2009.
NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on July 22, 2010, upholding dismissal citing gross negligence and loss of trust and confidence.
CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling on October 12, 2011, agreeing petitioner was grossly negligent and validly dismissed.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether petitioner was validly dismissed on grounds of gross and habitual negligence.
Whether petitioner’s dismissal on ground of loss of trust and confidence was valid.
Whether petitioner had custodial responsibility over the hospital equipment in question.
Whether petitioner regularly conducted inventories and took measures to secure equipment.
Whether the CA and NLRC gravely abused their discretion in finding petitioner’s dismissal valid.

Legal Framework for Review on Appeal

Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only questions of law raised against CA decisions.
The Court may review factual issues if there is a conflict between decisions of the NLRC and CA and to determine whether there was grave abuse of discretion.
The issue is whether the CA correctly found that NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Analysis on Gross and Habitual Negligence

Gross negligence requires a complete lack or want of due care in performing duties, with failure tanta