Case Summary (G.R. No. 242286)
Factual Background and Basis for Dismissal
Respondent was charged with facilitating a credit adjustment of Php998.99 to her father's Globe Telecom account on October 24, 2014, allegedly without proper notation or justification, constituting violations of company policies on fraud and serious misconduct. She was placed under preventive suspension and subsequently dismissed after administrative proceedings concluded she violated standard operating procedures (SOP) and committed fraud against the company. Respondent contested the dismissal as illegal before the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals.
Decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
The Labor Arbiter found that although respondent may have violated company procedures, the penalty of dismissal was too severe and ordered her reinstatement without declaring dismissal illegal. On appeal, the NLRC initially ruled that respondent was illegally dismissed and awarded full backwages but denied separation pay and attorney’s fees. However, on reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself, declaring dismissal valid and rescinding monetary awards, prompting respondent to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals upheld the existence of just cause for dismissal but considered the penalty of dismissal too harsh given respondent’s decade-long unblemished service. It modified the award by granting separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, along with monetary awards including full backwages and interest, while ordering respondent to reimburse the credit adjustment amount with interest. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the filing of the present petition.
Issues for Supreme Court Resolution
- Whether petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal
- Whether respondent is entitled to separation pay
Standard of Review and Jurisprudential Framework
The Court emphasized its authority to review not just the legal but also the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies such as the NLRC and the Court of Appeals when substantial evidence is absent or when findings are contradictory, quoting precedents including Laya v. Philippine Veterans Bank and Agabon v. NLRC.
Analysis on Illegal Dismissal: Serious Misconduct
To justify dismissal for serious misconduct, the employer must prove that the misconduct is serious, related to job duties rendering the employee unfit to continue, and committed with wrongful intent. Petitioner failed to establish these elements because:
- The reason the credit adjustment was deemed invalid was unclear and unproven.
- Respondent was authorized to make credit adjustments as part of her duties.
- The disputed absence of notation did not conclusively prove wrongdoing.
- There was no evidence that the adjustment deprived the company of lawful income or was concealed.
Thus, the mere failure to follow SOP without wrongful intent does not amount to serious misconduct justifying dismissal.
Analysis on Illegal Dismissal: Fraud
Fraud as a ground for dismissal requires proof of intentional dishonesty— a conscious and deliberate act to deceive or defraud. Petitioner’s allegations of dishonesty were speculative and unsubstantiated as:
- It assumed past misconduct without proof.
- It speculated broadly about risks from other employees without specific evidence.
- It failed to establish that the credit adjustment was intentionally fraudulent or that it violated company policies prohibiting relatives’ account adjustments.
- Respondent’s act did not demonstrate intentional evasion of obligations but possibly a procedural lapse.
The absence of clear and convincing evidence that respondent acted with fraudulent intent renders the dismissal illegal under this ground.
Entitlement to Backwages and Separation Pay
An illegally dismissed employee is typically entitled to reinstatement with backwages. However, when strained employer-employee relations make reinstatement impractical, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is proper. Backwages serve as equitable compensation for earnings lost due to illegal dismissal. Given the Court’s finding of illegal dismissal, respondent is entitled to:
- Full backwages from the time of dismissal to the finality of the decision
- Separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service, with fractions of six months considered as a
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 242286)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Globe Telecom, Inc. is engaged in telecommunication services; respondent Kay Abastillas Ebitner was employed since June 2005 and eventually promoted to Retail Shop Specialist.
- On March 16, 2015, petitioner issued a Notice to Explain to respondent, alleging she facilitated an "invalid credit adjustment" amounting to Php 998.99 on her father's account without proper notation, citing possible violations including fraud and serious misconduct.
- Respondent admitted facilitating the credit adjustment using her userID but claimed she could not recall the transaction details and requested to review records.
- Respondent contended that company policy would have alerted her of any invalid transaction within a month and expressed willingness to reimburse if proven invalid.
- During administrative hearing, respondent explained the adjustment was a goodwill act to reduce the monthly service fee on her father’s account due to complaints by the end-user, her mother, for frequent dropped calls.
- Petitioner found respondent guilty of failure to follow procedures and dismissed her for fraud and serious misconduct, stating no notation was found to justify the credit adjustment.
- Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and damages.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision
- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, acknowledging failure to follow procedures but deemed dismissal too harsh and unreasonable.
- Ordered reinstatement with forfeiture of backwages as penalty; other claims were dismissed.
- Arbiter did not expressly declare illegal dismissal.
- Both parties appealed to the NLRC.
NLRC’s Decisions
- Initial NLRC decision (November 25, 2015) found illegal dismissal and granted full backwages but denied attorney’s fees and separation pay; denied petitioner’s appeal.
- Subsequently, NLRC reversed itself (February 19, 2016) on petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, declaring no illegal dismissal and deleting monetary awards.
- Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
- CA, in its July 26, 2018 decision, modified the NLRC resolution by reinstating monetary awards to respondent.
- Confirmed just cause for dismissal but found dismissal penalty too harsh considering respondent’s 10-year tenure and unblemished record.
- Awarded separation pay equivalent to one month salary per year of service, less one month salary penalty.
- Imposed 6% interest on separation pay and ordered respondent to reimburse petitioner Php 998.99 with interest.
- Denied petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.