G.R. No. 209437 - PHILAM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND MARCIA CAGUIAT, VS. SYLVIA DE LUNA AND NENITA BUNDOC.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on May 23, 2009, PHAI's Board of Directors issued a Memorandum addressed to De Luna demanding payment for the amount of P757,315.00, and informing her of her dismissal from service by reason of dishonesty, misappropriation and malversation of funds. [13] This prompted De Luna and Bundoc to initiate separate complaints [14] for illegal dismissal, underpayment and non-payment of wages, underpayment of retirement benefits, illegal suspension, attorney's fees and damages. Both contended that they were subjected to an investigation and were made to answer questions without the documents supporting the alleged irregularities they committed. [15] Bundoc further asserted that her written statement was prepared without assistance of a counsel and that she was required to file a 30-day leave of absence. After its expiration, PHAI already dismissed her from service. On the other hand, De Luna recounted that her request to be furnished copies of the supporting documents in order to give an intelligent answer remained unheeded. Similarly, after the final audit report was submitted, she was once again required to explain the anomalies, but PHAI still refused to give her the details of the final audit report. De Luna recalled that PHAI did not agree to conduct a formal hearing on the matter. She was put under preventive suspension for 15 days which was extended twice for 15 days each. [16] PHAI asserted that De Luna and Bundoc were dismissed for just cause, particularly under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code for fraud or willful breach of trust and confidence by an employee. [17] They were likewise afforded due process before their services were terminated, and no force was employed in the execution of Bundoc's written statement or in the filing of leave of absence. [18] Ruling of the Labor Arbiter: The Arbiter, in an April 30, 2010 Decision, [19] found that the termination of both De Luna and Bundoc was legal since it was based on a just cause, and that due process was observed. [20] First, the Arbiter held that respondents' issuance of official and provisional receipts and not recording them, as well as alteration of official receipts, among others, were irregularities in the performance of their duties as Office Supervisor and Cashier, resulting to PHAI's loss of confidence which is one of the just causes under the Labor Code. Since their positions are imbued with trust and confidence, it is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss of trust and confidence or that the employer had reasonable ground to believe that the erring employee's participation rendered him/her unworthy of the trust required by the position. [21] Second, the Arbiter emphasized that a trial-type hearing is not at all times required as long as the parties were given the opportunity to be heard, as in the case of De Luna and Bundoc. The lack thereof does not make the dismissal flawed. Finally, the monetary claims were likewise denied due to insufficiency of evidence. [