[G.R. No. 113271.

October 16, 1997] The WDC made an appeal to Supreme Assailing the decision of NLRC and the
inadmissibility of the evidence.
WATEROUS DRUG CORPORATION and MS. EMMA CO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANTONIA MELODIA CATOLICO, respondents ISSUE:

SECTION 2 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL (PEOPLE VS MARTI). IN THIS CASE, THE ENVELOPE
DISCOVERED IS ADMISSIBLE TO THE COURT. HOWEVER, THE DISMISSL
OF CATOLICO WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS VESTED UNDER MERE
SUSPICION.
FACTS:
Antonia Catolico was hired by Waterous Drug Corporation (WDC) as pharmacist. On
year 1989, Catlico received a memorandum not to negotiate with their supplier
without consulting to purchasing department. On year 1990, control clerk Valdez
informed the Vice-President General Manager Emma Co about irregularities in
some of their sales, which involves Catolico and YunShing Pharmaceuticals. Catolico
was accused of pocketing an amount of 640.00 Philippine Peso from over-priced
medicines.
Catolico was given a chance to explain her side. She said that a certain Mrs.Saldana
opened an envelope from pharmaceutical company which turned out the amount
in question in this case. Catolico thought the envelope was a gift to her, which was
normal to receive in the said company.
However, the Waterous Drug Corporation still dismissed Catolico.
Catolico filed a complaint before the office of labor arbiter. She alleged an unfair
labor practice, illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension.
RULING OF LABOR ARBITER – there was an illegal dismissal. However, she should
not be reinstated because that was the best of catolico.
Whether or not, the NLRC acted with grave abuse of Discretion and whether or not
the envelope can be declared as inadmissible evidence.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that in the case of:
“People v. Marti the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures refers to the immunity of ones person from interference by government
and cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it
within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. The
constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the
immunity of ones person from interference by government and cannot be extended
to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government.”
Applying the former ruling of the Supreme Court in the current case, the discovery
of the envelope does not violate the constitutional protection of Catolico because it
does not apply to private individual.
In matter involving her illegal dismissal: the Supreme Court held:
Catolicos dismissal then was obviously grounded on mere suspicion, which in no
case can justify an employees dismissal. Suspicion is not among the valid causes
provided by the Labor Code for the termination of employment; and even the
dismissal of an employee for loss of trust and confidence must rest on substantial
grounds and not on the employers arbitrariness, whims, caprices, or suspicion.
Besides, Catolico was not shown to be a managerial employee, to which class of
employees the term trust and confidence is restricted

Cotolico was entitled to get her back wages of 26, 850 and a separation for a total
amount of 35,401.
RULING OF NLRC – affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter and declared the envelope
discovered as inadmissible evidence against Catolico.
The SC affirmed the decision of LABOR ARBITER.
Deletion of the prior ruling of NLRC pertaining to the inadmissibility of the
envelope.