Sunrise Holiday Concepts, Inc. v. Arugay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Teresa A. Arugay was engaged by petitioner Sunrise Holiday Concepts, Inc. as Collection Manager on a probationary basis. She was promised a salary adjustment after six months, which did not materialize. Her duties involved extensive coordination with collectors and clients, requiring her to use a company mobile phone, often outside company premises. She reported an Assistant Collection Manager for dishonesty. Subsequently, respondent received a show-cause memorandum for alleged dishonesty (unauthorized use of company mobile phone for personal use) and tardiness. She denied the charges, explaining her need for a phone and her submission of a request for mobile phones. She was preventively suspended and subsequently terminated for alleged loss of trust and confidence, citing violation of company rules, poor management style, misdemeanor, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. Procedural History: Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of 13th month pay, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially reversed the NLRC, ordering nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory due process. However, upon reconsideration, the CA amended its decision, reinstating the NLRC's ruling with modification: reinstatement or separation pay, backwages minus a nominal amount for personal calls, and deletion of moral and exemplary damages for lack of basis. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's Amended Decision and Resolution, arguing that the respondent was illegally dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent was illegally dismissed from employment by petitioner company. Whether the penalty of dismissal was commensurate to the infractions committed by the respondent.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Amended Decision dated April 7, 2009, and the Resolution dated September 2, 2009, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100227 are affirmed. The dismissal of the respondent was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal: The onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause. In this case, petitioner failed to prove that respondent’s dismissal was for a valid cause. The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in upholding the illegal dismissal of the respondent. The penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the infraction committed by the employee. Based on the findings of fact by the LA, which were affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, respondent made only three (3) personal calls using the company-issued cellular phone, and the total cost of the said calls was Nine Pesos (₱9.00). Respondent herself duly recorded the said personal calls on the company logbook so that the same could be charged to her personal account, which disproves the imputation of her dishonesty. On the alleged tardiness committed by respondent, the same is not grave as to merit respondent’s dismissal from service, considering that if it was true that respondent had been habitually tardy for several months, petitioner would not have retained her services beyond the probationary period. The LA amply explained the unjustifiable dismissal of respondent in this wise: "This Office does not subscribe to the idea that complainant who is a manager should be dismissed for making three personal mobile phone calls worth ₱9.00, or for being late a number of times. Nor does this Office believe that complainant’s act of taking outside of company premises a mobile phone in the pursuit of her office functions is an act of dishonesty." The records confirm that there is no proof that a copy of respondents’ company policies was furnished to complainant prior to the alleged violations. Respondents failed to controvert these allegations, and they are therefore deemed admitted. On the commensurability of the penalty: Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. Otherwise stated, it must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices, or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. It should be genuine and not simulated; nor should it appear as a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith or a subterfuge for causes that are improper, illegal, or unjustified. It has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. There must, therefore, be an actual breach of duty committed by the employee that must be established by substantial evidence. In this case, the penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the violation committed by her. It bears stressing that while an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules, and regulations on work-related activities of the employees, those directives, however, must always be fair and reasonable, and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, must always be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. Finally, a lesser penalty should have been imposed by petitioner company to respondent considering that she has no history of previous infractions.
Main Doctrine
The penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the infraction of making three personal calls amounting to Nine Pesos (₱9.00) and habitual tardiness, especially when the employee has no history of previous infractions and the employer failed to prove willful breach of trust based on clearly established facts. Loss of trust and confidence must be based on substantial grounds and not on arbitrariness or suspicion.