Schering Employees Labor Union v. Schering Plough Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the termination of Lucia P. Sereneo, president of the Schering Employees Labor Union (SELU), from her position as a professional medical representative at Schering Plough Corporation. SELU and Sereneo alleged unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal, claiming her termination was a retaliatory measure for her union activities and the renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement. The company, however, asserted that Sereneo was dismissed for dishonesty, willful breach of trust, and willful disobedience, citing her failure to perform duties, misappropriation of company funds, falsification of company records, and submission of false reports. 2. Procedural History: A complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal was filed with the Labor Arbiter, who ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering Sereneo's reinstatement and back pay. Upon appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, dismissing the complaint. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. Subsequently, a petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion and upholding the dismissal. A motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision was also denied. 3. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assails the December 10, 1999 Decision and March 14, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC's decision, which they contend was not supported by substantial evidence. They maintain that Sereneo's dismissal was illegal and constituted unfair labor practice. The core of the petition is to challenge the findings of the lower tribunals regarding Sereneo's alleged dishonesty and breach of trust, and to assert that her termination was a result of union busting activities by the company.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Sereneo was illegally dismissed from employment. Whether the respondents committed unfair labor practice and union busting.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision dated December 10, 1999, and Resolution dated March 14, 2000, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51361 are affirmed. Petitioner Sereneo's dismissal from the service is deemed valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court sustained the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that petitioner Sereneo was guilty of falsifying company call cards by altering the dates of her actual visits to physicians. Furthermore, on August 27, 1997, she was found guilty of misappropriation of company funds by falsifying food receipts. These infractions demonstrate her dishonesty and a clear breach of the trust reposed in her by the respondents. Consequently, her dismissal from the service was in order, as fraud or willful breach of trust is a valid ground for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended. The Court found that petitioner Sereneo was accorded due process. She was given ample time to explain and answer the charges against her through two (2) memos issued by the respondent company. However, she opted not to submit her explanation, mistakenly believing it would be futile. The Court reiterated that due process simply means the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, which was afforded to her. Therefore, the respondent company could not be faulted for exercising its management prerogative to impose discipline on an erring employee. The Court noted that Sereneo's failure to refute point by point the specific charges leveled against her worked to her disadvantage, reinforcing the impression that she had indeed been remiss in her duties, as evidenced by the alterations in the copies of call cards submitted. On the issue of unfair labor practice and union busting: The Court found no evidence to support the petitioners' accusation of union busting, stating that the records were thoroughly scanned without discerning any evidence to sustain such a charge. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the union to present substantial evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor practices, and in this case, the circumstances clearly negated even a prima facie showing to warrant such a belief.
Main Doctrine
An employee found guilty of dishonesty, such as falsifying company records and misappropriating company funds, may be validly dismissed from employment based on loss of trust and confidence, provided due process was observed.