De Guzman v. PMI Colleges, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226300. November 29, 2017.]

VERONICA PIANO DE GUZMAN, petitioner,vs. PMI COLLEGES, INC. AND RIZABEL CLOMA-SANTOS, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 November 2017 which reads as follows:

''G.R. No. 226300 (Veronica Piano De Guzman v. PMI Colleges, Inc. and Rizabel Cloma-Santos)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the February 22, 2016 Decision 1 and August 10, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 133752 for failure of petitioner Veronica Piano De Guzman (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the validity of her dismissal from work and denying her claim for full retirement benefits.

As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's preventive suspension was valid, given that she occupied a sensitive position as school cashier and that PMI Colleges, Inc. (PMI) was justified in protecting its assets and operations pending investigation of the charges against her. 3 Likewise, petitioner's dismissal was legal since she was found to have availed of the "vale" without the approval of the proper authority in violation of PMI's policies and procedures. Such act may be considered as a form of serious misconduct as well as a ground for the employer's loss of trust and confidence in her, 4 which are just causes for terminating employment under Article 297 5 of the Labor Code, as amended. Accordingly, having been dismissed for a valid cause, petitioner is only entitled to 100% of the accumulated value of her personal contribution plus income earned as provided under Section 4, Article IV of the PMI Colleges Retirement Plan. 6

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 51-69. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.

2.Id. at 91-92.

3.Bluer than Blue Joint Ventures, Co. v. Esteban, 731 Phil. 502, 513-514 (2014).

4.Tabuk Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Duclan, G.R. No. 203005, March 14, 2016, 787 SCRA 329, 346; P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. Velayo, 746 Phil. 781, 794 (2014).

5. As renumbered by DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015.

   ART. 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

   (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

xxx xxx xxx

   (b) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphases supplied)

6. SEC. 4. Voluntary Resignation, involuntary termination and dismissal for cause. — Any member not eligible for retirement plan who resigns voluntarily from the service of the College shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the accumulated value arising from his personal contribution plus income earned and the College's accumulated value arising from its contributions plus income earned in accordance with the following schedule:

xxx xxx xxx

   In case of a Member dismissed for cause by the College, the Members shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the accumulated value arising from his personal contribution plus income earned, the College's accumulated value arising from its contribution plus income earned shall be forfeited by the Member and shall be retained in the Fund to reduce its future contribution. (Emphasis supplied)