Cruz v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Felix M. Cruz, Jr. was employed by Citytrust Banking Corporation (Citytrust) from October 8, 1979, holding the confidential position of Micro Technical Support Officer. His duties included evaluating and recommending requests for Micro Computers and evaluating bids. He received awards, salary increases, and a promotion. An investigation revealed unauthorized commissions and rebates given by a computer supplier, MECO Enterprises, Inc. (MECO), for purchases made by Citytrust. A MECO certification indicated Cruz received P105,192.00 in commissions and rebates from September 1992 to March 1993. Citytrust issued a show-cause memorandum to Cruz, placed him under preventive suspension, and conducted an administrative hearing. The Ad Hoc Committee found Cruz guilty of fraud, serious misconduct, gross dishonesty, and serious violation of bank policies. Consequently, Citytrust terminated Cruz's employment effective October 6, 1993, due to loss of confidence. Procedural History: Cruz filed an action for Illegal Dismissal and Damages before the Labor Arbiter, claiming denial of due process and hasty dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Cruz, ordering reinstatement with full backwages, 13th-month pay, damages, and attorney's fees. Citytrust appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and dismissed the case for lack of merit. Cruz's motion for reconsideration was denied. Cruz then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA, in its Decision dated April 27, 2001, affirmed the NLRC's ruling, finding substantial evidence that Cruz benefited from the proceeds of checks issued and that his actions constituted a willful breach of employer's trust and confidence, justifying his termination. Cruz filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and in concluding that he benefited from the anomalous transactions despite his signature not appearing on the check vouchers. He also claimed denial of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the NLRC's decision, including the propriety of the remedy and alleged procedural lapses. Whether the petitioner was denied due process. Whether there was substantial evidence to justify the dismissal of the petitioner on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the petitioner failed to avail of the proper remedy (appeal under Rule 45) within the reglementary period and also failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the CA's decision, which are prerequisites for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, absent any exceptions. Furthermore, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA, as there was substantial evidence to support the petitioner's dismissal for loss of trust and confidence, and he was afforded due process.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and procedural lapses regarding the Court of Appeals decision: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the proper remedy to obtain reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits is an appeal. The petitioner received the CA's decision on May 17, 2001, and had 15 days to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, but instead filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on July 9, 2001, after the reglementary period for appeal had lapsed. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and these remedies are mutually exclusive. Moreover, the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the CA's decision, which is generally an indispensable prerequisite for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as it affords the tribunal an opportunity to correct its errors. None of the recognized exceptions to this rule were present in the case. On the alleged denial of due process: The Court found that the petitioner was not denied due process. The basic requirement of notice and hearing in termination cases is met by informing the employee of the charges and giving them an opportunity to be heard, which does not necessarily require a full adversarial proceeding. The petitioner was able to respond to the show-cause memorandum and attended the administrative hearing conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee, where he was informed of the charges and given an opportunity to explain his side. The employer complied with the two-notice rule: a notice of the charges and grounds for termination, and a written notice of the dismissal decision stating the reasons. On the dismissal for loss of trust and confidence: The Court held that there was substantial evidence to justify the petitioner's dismissal for loss of trust and confidence, given his confidential position. The petitioner's reliance on the absence of his signature on check vouchers was misplaced, as other pieces of evidence corroborated his guilt. These included his admission in a letter of receiving material considerations from MECO, a certification from MECO detailing commissions paid to him, testimonies of company officers regarding his admissions, and statements from an auditor that checks were encashed by his common-law wife or deposited into his account. Annotations on the check vouchers also confirmed they were for rebates given to him. These pieces of evidence, taken together, constituted substantial evidence of his willful breach of trust, justifying his termination.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and a motion for reconsideration is generally an indispensable prerequisite to filing such a petition, absent specific exceptions.