Mercury Drug Corporation, Los Baños Branch v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Prosserpina Presidente was employed by petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation as a Pharmacy Assistant. She was assigned to the Los Baños Branch, which was experiencing sales below quota. The branch manager, Mr. Willie Hidalgo, devised a scheme to boost sales and create goodwill by accommodating customer requests to reflect purchases made in other branches on the original receipt, provided validated cash register tapes were presented and the company incurred no losses. This practice continued even after Mr. Hidalgo left. Procedural History: Private respondent was asked to issue a receipt for a medicine purchased from another branch, which she did. Later, she was asked to add the cost of items purchased from another branch to a cash invoice. The new branch manager, Mr. Sammy Carpio, was informed of this incident by the cashier. Subsequently, private respondent was summoned to the main office, confronted with the incident, and pressured by company officers to resign, which she did under duress. She then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Petition: The Labor Arbiter found private respondent to have been illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with backwages and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision. Petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation filed a petition for review on certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the NLRC for asserting that there was no company regulation against falsification and that the acts were tolerated.
Issue(s)
Whether the act of inserting additional items in the original copy of a cash slip/receipt constitutes falsification under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the private respondent was illegally dismissed. Whether the company tolerated the practice of reflecting purchases from other branches on receipts.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the act constitutes falsification under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that the mere falsification of a document is not sufficient to constitute the crime of falsification of a private document. It must be proven that prejudice was caused to a third person or that there was an intention to cause such prejudice. In this case, the scheme was introduced by a former branch manager to boost sales and goodwill, and the company admitted that no losses were incurred. Therefore, no prejudice or intent to cause prejudice was shown on the part of the private respondent. The private respondent was merely following a directive that had been established practice. On whether the private respondent was illegally dismissed: The Court found that while the company rules and regulations were not formally presented, the private respondent's own testimony indicated awareness of company policies, including those against falsification. However, the scheme itself, introduced by a former manager, did not cause damage to the company or third parties. Instead, it was intended to benefit the company by increasing sales and assisting customers with reimbursements. The private respondent's actions, in this context, were performed under a directive that had become a tolerated practice, and she was performing additional tasks beyond her regular duties. Therefore, her dismissal was deemed illegal. On whether the company tolerated the practice: The Court acknowledged that there was no direct evidence showing higher management's awareness or tolerance of the scheme. However, the evidence showed that the scheme was practiced at the Los Baños Branch since its introduction by the former manager. The Court reasoned that the present manager should have noticed and corrected this practice. Failing to do so, the blame for the continuation of the practice cannot be solely placed on subordinates who were merely following directives. The Court also reiterated the rule that findings of fact of administrative bodies, when based on substantial evidence, are controlling on reviewing authorities.
Main Doctrine
The act of inserting additional items in the original copy of a cash slip, which were not actually bought at the branch where the employee worked, does not constitute falsification under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code if no prejudice is caused to a third person or the intention to cause it is not proven. Furthermore, if such practice was introduced by a former manager and continued without explicit prohibition or correction by higher management, and was intended to boost sales and customer goodwill without causing loss to the company, an employee dismissed for such act may be considered illegally dismissed.