THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242450. March 6, 2019.]
LEAH A. PILIEN, petitioner, vs.ANNALISA PASCASIO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME FG RESTO AND BULALOHAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242450 (Leah A. Pilien vs. Annalisa Pascasio, doing business under the name FG Resto and Bulalohan). — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review 1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision 2 dated June 22, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated September 28, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 154141, which affirmed the Decision 4 dated July 28, 2017 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in NLRC Case No. RAB-1-07-1124-16 (IS-1), dismissing petitioner Leah A. Pilien's (Pilien) complaint for illegal dismissal and awarding her wage differentials, back wages, unpaid 13th month pay, and nominal damages.
Recall that on October 6, 2015, Pilien started working for Annalisa Pascasio (Pascasio) as a waitress in the latter's bulalo restaurant. She was subsequently promoted to cashier, on a monthly salary of Php4,500.00 and a 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight work schedule. 5 Tensions arose between Pilien and her employer when Pilien refused to declare May 2016 as the commencement date of her employment in her Social Security application, as requested by Pascasio.
In a handwritten memorandum 6 dated June 18, 2016, Pascasio requested Pilien to provide a written explanation of why cash sales of the restaurant amounting to Php700.00 were found in the latter's possession but not duly recorded. Through a letter 7 dated June 20, 2016, Pilien apologized and promised that she will not repeat the same offense. On June 27, 2016, Pilien received another memorandum charging her with three instances of cashiering irregularities and placing her on preventive suspension for fifteen (15) days. Pilien essentially admitted two of the charges and explained her side of the matter. Her employer not being satisfied with her explanation, Pilien was issued a Termination Letter 8 on July 12, 2016.
On July 22, 2016, after unsuccessful conciliation proceedings, Pilien sued Pascasio for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and non-payment/underpayment of salary, overtime pay, 13th month pay, and nightshift differential pay. After failed attempts at an amicable settlement, the parties were directed to file position papers.
In a Decision 9 dated April 27, 2017, the Labor Arbiter (LA) sided with Pilien, disposing thus: cHaCAS
IN VIEW WHEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that [Pilien] was illegally dismissed and at the time of her employment she was underpaid. Consequently, [Pascasio], must pay [Pilien], her claims for wage differentials, back wages, unpaid 13th month pay and separation pay all having a total of Ninety-Four Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Four Pesos and Sixty Centavos (P94,674.60).
SO ORDERED.10
The LA held that Pilien was illegally dismissed. According to the LA, Pascasio was unable to present records which will substantiate the charges of cashiering irregularities against Pilien. 11 Pilien's dismissal was likewise defective as the Termination Letter did not specify in detail the grounds therefor. 12 Accordingly, Pilien was awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The LA also granted her prayer for underpayment of wages, back wages, and 13th month pay.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC, with Pascasio seeking the reversal of the LA decision and Pilien seeking reinstatement instead of separation pay. The labor tribunal modified the LA's ruling in its Decision 13 dated July 28, 2017, disposing thus:
WHEREFORE, respondent's Appeal is GRANTED IN PART. The Decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando dated April 27, 2017 is MODIFIED to the extent that the awards of separation pay and backwages are DELETED, and the complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, [Pascasio], doing business under the name FG Resto and Bulalohan is ORDERED to pay [Pilien] nominal damages in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00).
All other dispositions stand AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 14
The NLRC ruled that Pilien's dismissal was valid but defective. According to the national labor tribunal, Pascasio was justified in dismissing Pilien on the ground of breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence. The NLRC noted that Pilien did not present substantial evidence to refute the charges against her. She even admitted her wrongdoing and apologized. Considering the number of infractions and the nature of the position as cashier, Pascasio cannot be compelled to keep Pilien in employment despite the latter's repeated acts of misfeasance. However, the national labor tribunal held that the dismissal did not comply with procedural due process requirements, as the 24-hour period given to Pilien to explain her side did not constitute "reasonable opportunity within which to explain" under prevailing rules and jurisprudence. Consequently, the award of separation pay and back wages was set aside. The NLRC also denied Pilien's plea for reinstatement. 15
Aggrieved, Pilien filed motions for reconsideration challenging the reversal of the LA's decision and the denial of her plea for reinstatement. On October 24, 2017, the NLRC issued a Resolution 16 denying both motions. Pilien thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA.
On June 22, 2018, the CA rendered its Decision 17 in the case, disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated 28 July 2017, Resolution dated 29 August 2017, and Resolution dated 24 October 2017, of [the NLRC] in NLRC Case No. RAB-1-07-1124-16 (IS-1)/NLRC LAC No. 06-002033-17, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 18 DACcIH
The CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in rendering the assailed decision, holding that Pilien's dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence was adequately justified by the following pieces of evidence: first, the June 18, 2016 memorandum where Pilien was asked to account for the missing Php700.00 in the sales records; second, Pilien's June 20, 2016 letter wherein she admitted her fault and apologized; and third, the Termination Letter informing Pilien that her explanations were found unsatisfactory and that, as a consequence, she was being dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. The appellate court brushed aside Pilien's contention that dismissal was unwarranted for she had already remitted the missing amounts, holding that jurisprudence has classified cashiers as employees in positions of trust who can be dismissed upon showing of "some basis" or "reasonable ground" for loss of trust and confidence.
Pilien filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a Resolution 19 dated September 28, 2018. Hence, the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, which raises the sole issue of whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the NLRC's ruling which held that Pilien's dismissal was valid.
Ruling of the Court
The petition must be denied.
In Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corp./Mr. Ellena, et al., 20 and subsequent cases, 21 the Court held that the proper approach in reviewing decisions of the CA in petitions for certiorari against NLRC decisions is to examine "the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct." 22 Tested against these parameters, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA in rendering the assailed decision.
As regards the validity of Pilien's dismissal, the Court sees no reason to disturb the findings of the national labor tribunal, which were concurred in by the appellate court.
Willful breach of trust or confidence is among the just causes for termination under Article 295 of the Labor Code. The elements of this cause are: 1) an act or acts amounting to willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer, i.e., one that is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently; 2) proof of breach by substantial evidence; 3) the act complained of is work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer; and 4) the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. 23
The Court has studied the record and is convinced that all the aforementioned elements are present in the case at bar. It has been established that Pilien had been found in possession of amounts that were unaccounted for in her sales reports. In fact, she admitted to committing wrongdoing and promised to change her behavior. The series of memoranda and letters between Pilien and Pascasio constitute substantial evidence of Pilien's work-related misconduct which constituted breach of trust and confidence. Likewise, it has been established that Pilien was employed by Pascasio as a cashier; and it has been repeatedly held that a cashier occupies a position of trust and confidence as contemplated under Article 295. 24
The fact that Pilien's cashiering discrepancies were subsequently accounted for is of no moment. Breach of trust or loss of confidence is recognized by law as a ground for dismissing certain classes of employees precisely because of the sensitive nature of the tasks performed by these employees, such that, at the first substantiated instance of misconduct, if the employer has reasonable basis for losing trust and confidence in the employee, the latter may be dismissed. As the Court has said in Cañeda v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.: 25 HSCATc
[I]n holding a position requiring full trust and confidence, he gave up some of the rigid guarantees available to ordinary employees. Infractions which, if committed by others, might be overlooked or condoned may be penalized with a more severe disciplinary action precisely because of the special trust and confidence given the employee. A company's resort to self-defense, in the form of termination, would then be more easily justified. 26
All told, the record shows no indication that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed decision. The appellate court's ruling stands.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 22, 2018 and Resolution dated September 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154141, which affirmed the Decision dated July 28, 2017 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. RAB-1-07-1124-16 (IS-1)/NLRC LAC No. 06-002033-17, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-23.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring; id. at 24-31.
3.Id. at 32-37.
4. Penned by Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, with Commissioners Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan and Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap concurring; id. at 87-96.
5.Id. at 25, 54, 88.
6.Id. at 51.
7.Id. at 52.
8.Id. at 53.
9. Rendered by Executive Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando; id. at 54-59.
10.Id. at 59.
11.Id. at 57.
12.Id. at 57-58.
13.Id. at 87-96.
14.Id. at 95.
15.Id. at 102-108.
16.Id. at 113-116.
17.Id. at 24-31.
18.Id. at 31.
19. Id. at 32-33.
20. 613 Phil. 696 (2009).
21. University of Sto. Tomas v. Samahang Manggagawa ng UST, Fernando Pontesor, Rodrigo Clacer, Santiago Buisa, Jr., and Jimmy Nazareth, G.R. No. 184262, April 24, 2017; Quebral, et al. v. Angbus Construction, Inc., et al., 798 Phil. 179 (2016); Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 749 Phil. 388 (2014); Career Philippines v. Serna, 700 Phil. 1 (2012).
22. Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corp./Mr. Ellena, et al., supra note 20, at 707.
23. Villanueva, Jr. v. NLRC, et al., 687 Phil. 228, 241-242 (2012).
24. P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. Velayo, 746 Phil. 781 (2014); Cañeda v. Philippine Airlines, 545 Phil. 560 (2007); Mabeza v. NLRC, 338 Phil. 386 (1997); Metro Drug Corp. v. NLRC, 227 Phil. 121 (1986).
25. Supra.
26. Id. at 564.