Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Submitted to:
Shane E. Borres
1. P.J. LHUILLIER, INC. VS. VELAYO, G.R. NO. 198620 (NOVEMBER 12, 2014)
FACTS:
On June 13, 2003, PJ (CEBU) LHUILLIER, INC. hired FLORDELIZ M. ABATAYO as Accounting Clerk at the LH-4, Cagayan de Oro City Branch.
On February 9, 2008 appellant was served with a Show Cause Memo by MARIO RAMON LUDEA, Area Operations Manager of PJ Lhuillier,
ordering her to explain within 48 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for dishonesty, misappropriation, theft or
embezzlement of company funds in violation of Item 11, Rule V of the Company Code of Conduct. The charges against the appellant were based on
the Audit Findings conducted on October 29, 2007, where the overage amount of P540.00 was not reported immediately to the supervisor, not
recorded at the end of that day.
On February 11, 2008, complainant submitted her reply and admitted that she was not able to report the overage to the supervisor since the
latter was on leave on that day and that she was still tracing the overage; and that the omission or failure to report immediately the overage was just
a simple mistake without intent to defraud her employer. On March 10, 2008, PJ LHUILLIER terminated her employment as per Notice of Termination
on grounds of serious misconduct and breach of trust.
Labor Arbiter: Valid dismissal.
NLRC: Illegal dismissal.
CA: Illegal dismissal.
ISSUE:
Was there an illegal dismissal?
HELD:
Yes. The respondents misconduct must be viewed in light of the strictly fiduciary nature of her position.
There are two classes of corporate positions of trust: on the one hand are the managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the
management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and other officers or members of the
managerial staff; on the other hand are the fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the
normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely
charged with the care and custody of the employers money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.
The series of willful misconduct committed by the respondent in mishandling the unaccounted cash receipt exposes her as unworthy of the
utmost trust inherent in her position as branch cashier and vault custodian and bookkeeper. A cashiers inability to safeguard and account for missing
cash is sufficient cause to dismiss her.
8. BPI VS. PIO ROQUE S. COQUIA, JR., GR 167518 (MARCH 23, 2011)
FACTS:
Respondent Coquias stint with petitioner BPI lasted for 26 years commencing in 1972 when he was assigned as bookkeeper and was
thereafter promoted to various positions in different BPI branches, such as examiner in 1975, senior examiner in 1977, assistant auditor in
1981, assistant manager in 1984, senior assistant manager in 1987, manager in 1989 and as senior manager in Dagupan Branch from
1992 to 1998.
Respondent Coquia alleged that on June 3, 1998, he was instructed to take a vacation leave starting June 4, 1998 on account of an
internal audit to be conducted in BPI Dagupan Branch. Two days after he returned to work on June 15, 1998, he was asked to continue his
leave of absence until the auditors shall have concluded their examination. In a notice dated July 16, 1998, he was placed under
preventive suspension for 30 days due to further investigation of the various irregularities found to have been committed by him,
On August 18, 1998, respondent Coquia received a show cause memo dated August 17, 1998 directing him to explain in writing why
no disciplinary action should be taken against him. On November 23, 1998, a Notice of Termination dated November 18, 1998 was served
on respondent Coquia.
Labor Arbiter: Illegal dismissal.
NLRC: Valid dismissal.
CA: Valid dismissal.
ISSUE:
Was the dismissal of Coquia valid?
HELD:
Yes. It was declared that the bank acted correctly in terminating the employment of a senior manager for multiple reasons like, among
others, alleged conflict interest, having been supposedly involved in lending activities himself, competing with the bank; for having
allegedly incurred unjustified expenses, for supposed irregular encashments of checks, and for daylight borrowings from the banks
tellers. These are unsound banking practice in transgression of Central Bank rules and regulations. Initially, the Arbiter decided in favor of
the manager and ordered payment of a total award of more than P2 million in backwages and damages. But that was reversed by the
higher court and reduced to a separation pay of only of P1.5 M, owing to his long service from 1972 to 1998.
10. UNILEVER PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. RIVERA, G.R. NO. 201701 (JUNE 3,
2013)
FACTS:
Unilever is a company engaged in the production, manufacture, sale, and distribution of various food, home and personal care products, while Rivera was employed
as its Area Activation Executive for Area 9 South in the cities of Cotabato and Davao. She was primarily tasked with managing the sales, distribution and promotional
activities in her area and supervising Ventureslink International, Inc., a third party service provider for the companys activation projects. Unilever enforces a strict policy
that every trade activity must be accompanied by a Trade Development Program (TDP) and that the allocated budget for a specific activity must be used for such activity
only.
Sometime in 2007, Unilevers internal auditor conducted a random audit and found out that there were fictitious billings and fabricated receipts supposedly from
Ventureslink amounting to P11,200,000.00. It was also discovered that some funds were diverted from the original intended projects. Upon further verification,
Ventureslink reported that the fund deviations were upon the instruction of Rivera.
On July 16, 2007, Unilever issued a show-cause notice to Rivera asking her to explain the following charges, to wit: a) Conversion and Misappropriation of Resources;
b) Breach of Fiduciary Trust; c) Policy Breaches; and d) Integrity Issues.
Responding through an email, dated July 16, 2007, Rivera admitted the fund diversions, but explained that such actions were mere resourceful utilization of budget
because of the difficulty of procuring funds from the head office. She insisted that the diverted funds were all utilized in the companys promotional ventures in her area
of coverage.
Labor Arbiter: Valid dismissal.
NLRC: Valid Dismissal.
CA: Valid Dismissal
ISSUE:
Is Rivera validly dismissed? If yes, is she entitled to payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damage due to violation of her right to statutory process?
HELD:
Yes. In this case, Rivera was dismissed from work because she intentionally circumvented a strict company policy, manipulated another entity to carry out her
instructions without the companys knowledge and approval, and directed the diversion of funds, which she even admitted doing under the guise of shortening the
laborious process of securing funds for promotional activities from the head office. These transgressions were serious offenses that warranted her dismissal from
employment and proved that her termination from work was for a just cause. Hence, she is not entitled to a separation pay.
Yes, in this case, Unilever was not direct and specific in its first notice to Rivera. The words it used were couched in general terms and were in no way informative of
the charges against her that may result in her dismissal from employment. Evidently, there was a violation of her right to statutory due process warranting the payment
of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. Hence, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the award of nominal damages in her favor. The Court, however,
deems it proper to increase the award of nominal damages from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00, as initially awarded by the NLRC, in accordance with existing jurisprudence.