Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Nowella Reyes was appointed University Treasurer of petitioner Wesleyan University Philippines (WUP) on a probationary basis in March 2004 and later as full-time Treasurer. Following the constitution of a new WUP Board of Trustees in April 2009, an external audit was conducted due to rumors of financial anomalies. The audit revealed irregularities, including the encashment of checks by the Treasury Department for WUP personnel (violating the imprest system) and the encashment of crossed checks payable to the University Treasurer by a bank despite management's intention for fund transfers. The audit report also noted missing check vouchers and findings on altered check disbursement vouchers, unliquidated cash advances, and spurious duplicate checks. Procedural History: Petitioner served respondent a Show Cause Order requiring her to explain the findings. After an investigation by the Human Resources Development Office (HRDO) found her explanation unsatisfactory, respondent was dismissed on July 9, 2009. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging violations of labor laws regarding preventive suspension, denial of due process, and unsubstantiated charges. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, declaring her dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages and damages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding respondent legally dismissed based on loss of trust and confidence. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari. The CA reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision and finding the dismissal illegal. The Petition: Petitioner WUP filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision for allegedly over-reaching its power of review and for erroneously finding respondent illegally dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals over-reached its power of review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court when it reversed the judgment of the NLRC. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding respondent illegally dismissed by petitioner on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, and reinstated the National Labor Relations Commission's decision, finding that respondent Nowella Reyes was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' power of review: The Court held that the CA did not over-reach its power of review under Rule 65. Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, grants the CA the power to pass upon evidence and resolve factual issues when exercising its original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari. Therefore, the CA acted within its sound discretion when it re-evaluated the NLRC's factual findings and substituted its own judgment. On the issue of illegal dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence: The Court found that respondent was validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. The Court reiterated that dismissal based on this ground requires a willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts. While respondent was a fiduciary rank-and-file employee, her involvement in irregularities was proven. Specifically, she encashed a crossed check payable to the University Treasurer, violating basic banking practices and management's intention for fund transfer. She also allowed the Treasury Department to encash checks for WUP personnel, contrary to the imprest system and management's intent for funds to be sourced from the bank. The Court dismissed her defense that this was a usual practice, deeming it a convenient excuse. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the responsibility for liquidating cash advances had been transferred, the unliquidated amount was substantial, and her office had previously handled it with even larger unliquidated sums, indicating gross negligence. The Court concluded that respondent's actions constituted a willful breach of trust, justifying her dismissal.
Main Doctrine
Dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence requires a willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts. For rank-and-file employees, proof of involvement is necessary, while for managerial employees, a basis for believing the breach suffices. However, in this case, the respondent's involvement in irregularities was proven, rendering the distinction between managerial and rank-and-file irrelevant.