THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228076. March 29, 2017.]
MA. CLARIZEL Q. NUCUM, petitioner,vs. GOLDEN ARCHES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/MCDONALD'S PHILIPPINES and HONEYLET RAMOS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 29, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228076(MA. CLARIZEL Q. NUCUM, Petitioner v. GOLDEN ARCHES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/MCDONALD'S PHILIPPINES and HONEYLET RAMOS, Respondents). — The Court resolves to:
(1) GRANT petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and
(2) EXCLUDE the National Labor Relations Commission — Third Division and Labor Arbiter Raymund M. Celino as respondents from the title of this case pursuant to Section 4 (a), Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. ETHIDa
After a perusal of the records, this Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in promulgating the assailed decision on January 8, 2016 1 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes of termination. 2 However, termination based on loss of trust and confidence is valid upon compliance with the following requirements, namely: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. 3
All the aforesaid requisites are present. As a Second Assistant Manager, the petitioner unmistakably held a position of trust considering that she was charged with the tasks of implementing and monitoring cash policies and procedures; managing orders, payroll, and counters; and ensuring that crew members complied with the company rules. It was also her duty to balance cash and deposits and to audit the safe. Moreover, she breached the trust and confidence reposed in her when she went against company policy and ordered food without immediately paying, and paid for the cash shortage in the cash register instead of reporting the shortage to the restaurant manager. As the CA correctly held, she was charged with the care and custody of respondent Golden Arches Development Corporation/Mcdonald's Philippines's money and property, which necessarily vested her with higher responsibility and trust. Indeed, her infractions were sufficient grounds for her termination from employment.
The respondents complied with the twin-notice requirement. The records bear out that the petitioner received a memorandum informing her of the charges against her. Such notice enabled her to submit her answer on November 16, 2012. An administrative hearing was conducted on November 20, 2012, in which she was assisted by her counsel. Finally, she received the notice of termination on December 12, 2012. TIADCc
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on January 8, 2016, without pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 49-61; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.
2. Article 296 (c), Labor Code.
3.Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., G.R. No. 202158, September 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 406, 417-418.