Title
Leo's Restaurant and Bar Cafe vs. Densing
Case
G.R. No. 208535
Decision Date
Oct 19, 2016
Employee dismissed for alleged dishonesty over signing a contract and unaccounted donations; court ruled illegal dismissal, citing lack of evidence, upheld damages, and joint liability of owners.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208535)

Factual Antecedents

Laarne Densing was initially hired by Kimwa on January 2, 2002, and later appointed as Administrative Officer on July 4, 2005. Tensions arose when Densing signed a contract with Pepsi Products Philippines, Inc., which she claimed was authorized by her manager, Leo Lua. Allegations surfaced concerning dishonesty involving the misaccounting of soft drink donations and unauthorized personal charges to the company account.

Ruling of the Executive Labor Arbiter

The Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed Densing's complaint for illegal dismissal on November 20, 2007, citing valid grounds for her termination based on loss of trust and confidence. He, however, awarded her P15,000.00 as separation pay, acknowledging her good faith in signing the contract with Pepsi.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

The NLRC reversed the Arbiter's decision on November 28, 2008, declaring Densing's dismissal illegal. It found insufficient evidence to support the claims against her, concluding that she had acted in accordance with her job duties and did not commit acts warranting dismissal.

Subsequent Appeals

Petitioners sought reconsideration, leading to the NLRC's June 4, 2009 decision, which reversed its prior ruling and upheld Densing's dismissal. This oscillating judgment arose from differing interpretations of her authority and actions.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On November 27, 2012, the Court of Appeals reinstated the NLRC's original finding of illegal dismissal, underscoring that the petitioners failed to demonstrate substantial evidence against Densing. The Court affirmed that there was insufficient justification for her termination due to lack of malicious intent or previous infractions.

Petitioners’ Arguments and Core Issues

Petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals made erroneous conclusions regarding the ownership of the establishments and asserted that grounds for dismissal were substantiated. They argued for a reevaluation of their loss of trust claim and challenged the imposition of moral and exemplary damages.

Respondent’s Counterarguments

Densing maintained that she was not guilty of a willful breach of trust, emphasizing her good faith actions and the absence of personal gain from her dealings concerning Pepsi. She highlighted the lack of harm to the company resulting from her actions.

Court’s Ruling on the Petition

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, affirming the view that the petitioners failed to prov

...continue reading

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