De la Cruz, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Florencio M. de la Cruz, Jr. was hired by Shemberg Marketing Corporation as Senior Sales Manager on May 27, 1996. His duties included supervising the sales force and having discretion in certain matters. However, on September 14, 1996, his employment was terminated. The company cited poor performance, dissatisfaction among subordinates, unauthorized use of a company cell phone for overseas calls, and unauthorized reimbursement of his wife's and child's plane tickets as reasons for dismissal, asserting a loss of trust and confidence. De la Cruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, backwages, and damages. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of de la Cruz, finding him illegally dismissed and ordering Shemberg to pay P438,750.00 in separation pay, backwages, and unpaid wages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially dismissed Shemberg's appeal. However, upon reconsideration and the submission of additional evidence by Shemberg, the NLRC modified its decision on July 9, 1999, ordering Shemberg to pay de la Cruz P23,900.00 for unpaid wages and indemnity, abandoning its previous resolution. De la Cruz's motion for reconsideration of this modified decision was denied by the NLRC on November 19, 1999. Subsequently, de la Cruz filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition for lack of merit on July 11, 2000. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner Florencio M. de la Cruz, Jr. filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He argues that the Court of Appeals erred in not awarding backwages despite the employer's failure to comply with the two-notice requirement, citing the doctrine in Serrano vs. NLRC. He also contends that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the submission of plane tickets for his family's reimbursement constituted unauthorized use of company funds, asserting it was an afterthought by the respondents. Furthermore, he claims the Court of Appeals erred in failing to award damages and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it refused to award backwages notwithstanding its finding that respondents failed to comply with the two-notice requirement. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the submission by petitioner of plane tickets for refund constituted unauthorized use of company funds, despite the absence of evidence on a specific prohibition and considering that it was respondents' afterthought. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to award damages as well as attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 11, 2000, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the refusal to award backwages despite the alleged failure to comply with the two-notice requirement: The Court found that the petitioner's dismissal was for a just cause, specifically dishonesty, which led to the loss of trust and confidence. While the petitioner argued that the two-notice rule was not followed, the Court emphasized that the primary basis for dismissal was the petitioner's act of reimbursing his family's personal travel expenses using company funds. The Court reiterated that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence, and in this case, the evidence supported the finding of dishonesty. The Court also noted that the Serrano v. NLRC doctrine, which mandates backwages for lack of notice, is predicated on dismissals without just cause, which was not the situation here. On the unauthorized use of company funds for plane tickets: The Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorized use of company funds with respect to the reimbursement of plane ticket fares for his family. Although the petitioner denied reimbursing the costs or using company funds, the possession by the respondent corporation of the plane tickets in the name of petitioner's wife and child, along with terminal fee stubs, clearly indicated that they were submitted for reimbursement. The Court found the petitioner's denial insufficient against this evidence, especially since he failed to explain why these tickets were in the possession of the respondent corporation. The Court rejected the argument that this issue was an afterthought, citing Article 221 of the Labor Code, which states that technical rules of evidence are not controlling in labor cases, allowing the NLRC to consider additional evidence on appeal. On the failure to award damages and attorney's fees: The Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the NLRC's ruling, which did not award damages and attorney's fees. The primary issue revolved around the legality of the dismissal and the monetary awards related to unpaid wages and indemnity. Since the dismissal was found to be for a just cause, the claims for damages and attorney's fees, which are typically awarded in cases of illegal dismissal or bad faith, were not granted. The Court's focus remained on the validity of the termination and the specific monetary claims arising from it.
Main Doctrine
An employer may terminate a probationary employee for dishonesty, such as the unauthorized reimbursement of personal travel expenses using company funds, which constitutes a betrayal of trust and confidence, even if the issue was raised for the first time on appeal, as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases.