PANUNCILLO vs.

CAP PHILIPPINES Case Digest

GR 161305

FACTS: Milagros Panuncillo, had been employed by CAP Philippines since

1980, over 18 years of service to said company. She had a fully paid for
education plan for his son which she sold to Josefina Pernes for P37,000.
Pending transfer of plan, Panuncillo pledged it to John Chua for P50,000
who subsequently sold it to Benito Bonghanoy, who in turn sold the same to
Gaudioso R. Uy for P60,000.

Josefina learned of the transactions subsequent to hers and informed CAP that
Panuncillo had "swindled" her but that she was willing to settle the case amicably.

CAP, thru its Integrated Internal Audit Operations (IIAO), required petitioner to explain
in writing why the plan was not transferred to Josefina and was instead sold to another.
Petitioner, in compliance, proffered that she did not intend to defraud Josefina and
believed she will be able to borrow money from somebody else and redeem the plan.

A show-cause memorandum[6] dated February 23, 1999 was sent to petitioner to which
she did not replied to.

Petitioner also misappropriated the payment of a certain Evelia Casquejo in the amount
of P54,870.00 for a lapsed plan where the latter demanded payment from the
petitioner thru a demand letter. This was verbally admitted by petitioner.

In response to the show cause memorandum dated April 7, 1999 relating to the above
matter, Panuncillo admitted defrauding Josefina and the receipt of payment from
Casquejo. She further stated that she gave Casquejo a SPA authorizing the latter to
receive P68,000 from her retirement pay. While she is amenable to the disciplinary
action to be imposed upon her, she was praying that it will not be termination from her
job.

Pending resolution of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, another information

regarding payment of client Gwendolyn Dinoro for quarterly dues thru the petitioner
were not remitted, thus client was being penalized with interest charges.

The motion for reconsideration was denied and petitioner was terminated for cause.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter, found the dismissal
valid but ordered the reinstatement of petitioner to a position a rank lower rationalizing
that the dismissal was too harsh.
The NLRC on appeal by respondent held that the petitioner was illegally dismissed and
ordered her reinstatement to her former position.

Respondent challenged the NLRC decision before the appellate court via Petition for
Certiorari which reversed the NLRC Decision and held that the dismissal was valid, and
that respondent complied with the procedural requirements of due process before
petitioners services were terminated, hence the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner has been illegally dismissed

HELD: The petition is without merit. CAP Philippines Inc. exercised its management
prerogative when it dismissed Panuncillo and said dismissal is valid. Under the Labor
Code, the employer may terminate an employment on the ground of serious misconduct
or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work. Infractions of company rules and regulations
have been declared to belong to this category and thus are valid causes for termination
of employment by the employer. However, the employer must accord the employee due
process.

Panuncillo violated Section 8.4 of the Code of Discipling of CAP by committing the act
the code duly prohibits, not just once, but repeatedly. Said infractions eroded the trust
and confidence of the respondent. There can be no doubt that Panuncillo was given
ample opportunity to explain her side. Panuncillo admitted committing the actions in her
response to the show cause memorandum. Parenthetically, when an employee admits
the acts complained of, as in Panuncillo’s case, no formal hearing is even necessary.

The employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of a person who was
found guilty of maliciously committing acts which are detrimental to its interests. If such
employee is allowed to remain in the service, it may encourage him to do even worse
and such retention will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are
required to observe. This Court was more emphatic in holding that in protecting the
rights of the laborer, it cannot authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the
employer.

Author

Corazon S. Hernandez
January 22, 2019