G.R. No. 131405 - LEILANI MENDOZA, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ASIAN LAND STRATEGIES CORPORATION. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the complainant and against the respondent, ordering the latter, as follows: To pay the sum of P8,000.00 as one (1) month separation pay of the complainant in lieu of reinstatement; To pay the sum of P92,000.00 as back wages of complainant from June 16, 1995 up to this writing; To pay complainant moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00; and To pay attorney's fees in the sum of P15,000.00." Reversing the above disposition, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) [2] ruled: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and the instant case is hereby dismissed for lack of merit." [3] Reconsideration was denied in the Resolution dated September 19, 1997. [4] The Facts Respondent Commission narrates the facts in this wise: [5] "[Petitioner] started working with the [private] respondent during the latter part of April 1994. Shortly thereafter, she was appointed as [f]inance [m]anager of the [private] respondent and her tasks [included], among others, xxx custody of and disbursement of company funds. "On June 9, 1995, [petitioner] claims that she was summoned by Ms. Ma. Angela Celeridad, the company's [v]ice-[p]resident, who informed her that management had decided to terminate her employment. Hence, she was told either to resign or face dismissal. Later that day at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening, [petitioner] alleged that the [p]resident of the company, Johnny P. Lee, announced that her employment was already terminated. On June 23, 1995, [petitioner] lodged her complaint against the company for illegal dismissal. "[Private] [r]espondent, however, paints a different scenario of the circumstances surrounding [petitioner]'s cessation from her employment. [Private] [r]espondent denies having dismissed the [petitioner] as no memorandum or letter of dismissal was issued to the [petitioner]. [Private] [r]espondent asserts that on May 20, 1995, it received a complaint from several of its marketing and sales agents accusing [petitioner] of committing deliberate delays in the payment of their commission in violation of company policy. They alleged that she refused to release their commissions despite payment of the price of the properties they ha[d] brokered unless she [was] given a certain amount [as her cut]. These individual complainants include[d] Amado Roa, [a]cting [v]ice-[p]resident for marketing and all [d]ivision [h]eads of the Sales Department of the company, namely: Leonora Punongbayan, Elma Mendoza, Nestor Pamintuan and Melly Rubid. The company, through its [p]resident, furnished [petitioner] with a copy of the complaint and gave her time to answer the same. Despite having been given an extension to file a reply to the charges against her, [petitioner] failed to submit the same. Instead, on June 10, 1995, she stopped reporting for work. "In addition, [private] respondent claims that on June 15, 1995, another employee of the com