COPY CENTRAL DIGITAL COPY SOLUTION vs.

DOMRIQUE and LEAÑO

G.R. No. 193219, July 17, 2015

PRINCIPLE:

 A criminal conviction is not necessary to find just cause for employment

termination.

 Jurisprudence has expounded on the guarantee of due process, requiring the

employer to furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of
employment can be effected.

PONENTE: PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:

Respondents started working for petitioners as photocopy machine. Respondent

Leaño together with another employee sent a formal letter to the Regional Director of
DOLE complaining about the alleged labor standards violations committed by
petitioners. Based on the inspection report, there were certain labor standards violations
committed by petitioners.

The manager of the establishment ordered an audit where it was discovered that
there were discrepancies in the reading reports that were submitted by respondents.
Based on the report, Domrique allegedly pocketed ₱31,472.50, while Leaño pocketed
₱3,501.00. Susana Montano issued a termination letter to respondents for loss of trust
and confidence.

Respondents filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims.
Respondents essentially denied having misappropriated sums of money belonging to
the company. Petitioners contended that respondents were dismissed from employment
for loss of trust and confidence.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents. The LA ruled that petitioners
failed to afford respondents due process because the latter were not given notice of the
charges against them as well as the opportunity to explain their side. The NLRC denied
petitioners' appeal and affirming the decision of the LA. However, the NLRC reversed
and set aside its earlier Decision and ruled that the document entitled "Naiget Nga Kari,"
which was executed by respondents, and their subsequent acts of paying petitioners
are construed as admission on their part that they have committed the alleged illegal
acts which they were accused of having perpetrated and this is sufficient basis to
dismiss respondents from their employment for loss of trust and confidence.

The CA held that there is insufficient evidence to prove the validity of

respondents' dismissal from employment, both on the substantive and procedural
aspects of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the dismissal was valid.

RULING:

No. Petitioners failed to present substantial evidence to prove their allegation that
respondents are guilty of theft.
 To support their contention, petitioners rely primarily on the documents both
entitled "Naiget nga Kari" which were executed by respondents. A meticulous
examination of the documents would show that nothing therein would prove that
respondents admitted having committed theft against petitioners and that, as a
consequence of such theft, they have made partial restitution of the amount they
allegedly embezzled. There was neither any admission by respondents of any
wrongdoing which they have allegedly committed.

Citing the case of Nicolas v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court

held in Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. v. Arriola, et al.,  that a criminal conviction is not
necessary to find just cause for employment termination. Otherwise stated, an
employee's acquittal in a criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence
of reasonable doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of
acts inimical to the employer's interests. In the reverse, the finding of probable cause is
not followed by automatic adoption of such finding by the labor tribunals. In other words,
whichever way the public prosecutor disposes of a complaint, the finding does not bind
the labor tribunal.

In the instant case, petitioners cannot argue that, since the Assistant City
Prosecutor found probable cause for qualified theft and subsequently filed criminal
information against respondents, the LA must follow the finding as a valid reason for
their termination from employment. The proof required for purposes that differ from one
and the other are likewise different.

Hence, aside from the allegation of theft which was not substantiated, absent any
other ground for petitioners to lose trust and confidence in respondents, the Court
agrees with the LA and the CA that respondents' termination from employment is illegal.

As to the procedural aspect of the case, the Court likewise agrees with the
findings of both the LA and the CA that petitioners failed to observe the proper
procedure in terminating respondents' services.

Jurisprudence has expounded on the guarantee of due process, requiring the

employer to furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of
employment can be effected: a first written notice that informs the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his or her dismissal is sought, and a second
written notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss
him.17 In considering whether the charge in the first notice is sufficient to warrant
dismissal under the second notice, the employer must afford the employee ample
opportunity to be heard.

In the present case, how could petitioners' claim that they afforded respondents
their right to procedural due process when records show that petitioners' letters which
apprised respondents of the charges against them, were the same letters which
informed them of their dismissal from employment. Moreover, petitioners allege that, in
the same letters, they gave respondents the opportunity to explain their side. However,
a careful reading of these letters would show that there is no statement therein which
gives respondents the chance to refute petitioners' allegations. On the contrary, the
letter merely stated the conclusions already drawn by petitioners after their alleged
investigation of the supposed infractions committed by respondents. Neither was there
any other evidence to prove that respondents were, in fact, given the opportunity to be
heard.