Vilchez v. Free Port Service Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Segifredo T. Vilchez, Physical Security Department Manager of respondent Free Port Service Corporation (FSC), advised management of the need to secure PNP SOSIA licenses for 159 security officers and volunteered to procure them. He requested ₱127,200.00 for licenses, clearances, and tests. FSC issued Disbursement Voucher No. 04308 payable to Col. Angelito Gerangco, which petitioner certified as necessary and incurred under his supervision. The security personnel were deducted ₱800.00 each to cover the expenses. Procedural History: The Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Suspension on the ₱127,200.00 transaction, finding Gerangco not a designated disbursing officer and directing petitioner to settle it within 90 days. Despite a year passing, no settlement was made. Respondent FSC President Atty. Roel John T. Kabigting initiated administrative action against petitioner for serious misconduct resulting in loss of trust and confidence. Petitioner failed to file an Answer despite extensions and a preventive suspension. FSC issued a Notice of Dismissal on May 10, 2001. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found petitioner illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with backwages. Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and petitioner was reinstated. The NLRC reversed the LA's decision, dismissing the complaint. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing he was illegally dismissed because his dismissal was based on another person's act or omission, and that his subsequent mandatory retirement rendered the dismissal moot.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed based on the acts or omissions of another person. Whether petitioner's mandatory retirement during the pendency of the case rendered the dismissal moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' Decision affirming the NLRC's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in toto. The petitioner's dismissal was deemed valid, and thus, he is not entitled to backwages or reinstatement. His mandatory retirement did not render the case moot.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissal based on another person's act or omission: The Court held that petitioner was not illegally dismissed on this ground. Petitioner, as Physical Security Department Manager, held a position of trust and confidence. He voluntarily assumed full responsibility for procuring the licenses and other requirements. The failure to produce the licenses for two years and to account for the money was a direct failure in his duties, justifying the loss of trust and confidence. While Col. Gerangco was involved, he was not an employee of FSC, and it was petitioner who recommended and chose him. Petitioner certified the disbursement voucher as necessary and incurred under his supervision and received the check. Therefore, he could not shift the blame entirely to Gerangco. His belated letter to Gerangco, written only after receiving notice of administrative action, demonstrated a lack of fidelity to his duty and a breach of trust. On the issue of mandatory retirement rendering the case moot: The Court ruled that mandatory retirement during the pendency of an illegal dismissal case does not absolve an employee of prior wrongdoings or render the case moot. The validity of the dismissal must be determined because it affects the employee's entitlement to backwages and retirement benefits. The Court cited jurisprudence holding that cessation from office by resignation or retirement does not preclude a finding of administrative liability. Jurisdiction attaches at the time of filing the complaint and is not lost by subsequent events like retirement. Therefore, petitioner's mandatory retirement did not moot the case or absolve him of his infractions.
Main Doctrine
Mandatory retirement during the pendency of an illegal dismissal case does not absolve an employee of prior wrongdoings committed while in service, nor does it render the case moot, as the validity of the dismissal impacts entitlement to backwages and retirement benefits.