FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212054. March 11, 2015.]

ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC. , petitioner, vs. MARIA

THERESA V. SANCHEZ, respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J : p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated November
21, 2013 and the Resolution 3 dated April 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 129108 which affirmed the Decision 4 dated November 19, 2012
and the Resolution 5 dated January 14, 2013 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 06-001858-12, declaring the dismissal of
respondent Maria Theresa V. Sanchez (Sanchez) illegal.

The Facts

On June 29, 2009, Sanchez was hired by petitioner St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.
(SLMC) as a Staff Nurse, and was eventually assigned at SLMC, Quezon City's
Pediatric Unit until her termination on July 6, 2011 for her purported violation of
SLMC's Code of Discipline, particularly Section 1, Rule 1 on Acts of Dishonesty, i.e.,
Robbery, Theft, Pilferage, and Misappropriation of Funds. 6

Records reveal that at the end of her shift on May 29, 2011, Sanchez passed
through the SLMC Centralization Entrance/Exit where she was subjected to the
standard inspection procedure by the security personnel. In the course thereof, the
Security Guard on-duty, Jaime Manzanade (SG Manzanade), noticed a pouch in her
bag and asked her to open the same. 7 When opened, said pouch contained the
following assortment of medical stocks which were subsequently confiscated: (a)
Syringe 10cl [4 pieces]; (b) Syringe 5cl [3 pieces]; (c) Syringe 3cl [3 pieces]; (d)
Micropore [1 piece]; (e) Cotton Balls [1 pack]; (f) Neoflon g26 [1 piece]; (g) Venofix
25 [2 pieces]; and (h) Gloves [4 pieces] (questioned items). 8 Sanchez asked SG
Manzanade if she could just return the pouch inside the treatment room; however,
she was not allowed to do so. 9 Instead, she was brought to the SLMC In-House
Security Department (IHSD) where she was directed to write an Incident Report
explaining why she had the questioned items in her possession. 10 She complied 11
with the directive and also submitted an undated handwritten letter of apology 12
(handwritten letter) which reads as follows:

To In-House Security,

I am very sorry for bringing things from [SLMC] inside my bag. Pasensya na
po. Taos-puso po akong humihingi ng tawad sa aking pagkakasala, Alam ko
 po na ako ay nagkamali. Hindi ko po dapat dinala yung mga gamit sa
hospital. Hindi ko po alam kung [paano] ako magsisimulang humingi ng
patawad. Kahit alam kong bawal ay nagawa kong makapag uwi ng gamit.
Marami pang gamit dahil sa naipon po. Paisa-isa nagagawa kong makakuha
pag nakakalimutan kong isoli. Hindi ko na po naiwan sa nurse station dahil
naisip kong magagamit ko rin po pag minsang nagkakaubusan ng stocks at
talagang may kailangan. ITaCEc

Humihingi po ako ng tawad sa aking ginawa. Isinakripisyo ko ang hindi

pagiging "toxic" sa pagkuha ng gamit para sa bagay na alam kong mali.
Inaamin ko na ako'y naging madamot, pasuway at makasalanan. Inuna ko
ang comfort ko keysa gumawa ng tama. Manikluhod po akong humihingi ng
tawad.

Sorry po. Sorry po. Sorry po talaga. 13

In a memorandum 14 of even date, the IHSD, Customer Affairs Division, through

Duty Officer Hernani R. Janayon, apprised SLMC of the incident, highlighting that
Sanchez expressly admitted that she intentionally brought out the questioned
items.

An initial investigation was also conducted by the SLMC Division of Nursing 15 which
thereafter served Sanchez a notice to explain. 16

On May 31, 2011, Sanchez submitted an Incident Report Addendum 17 (May 31,
2011 letter), explaining that the questioned items came from the medication
drawers of patients who had already been discharged, and, as similarly practiced by
the other staff members, she started saving these items as excess stocks in her
pouch, along with other basic items that she uses during her shift. 18 She then put
the pouch inside the lowest drawer of the bedside table in the treatment room for
use in immediate procedures in case replenishment of stocks gets delayed.
However, on the day of the incident, she failed to return the pouch inside the
medication drawer upon getting her tri-colored pen and calculator and, instead,
placed it inside her bag. Eventually, she forgot about the same as she got caught up
in work, until it was noticed by the guard on duty on her way out of SMLC's
premises.

Consequently, Sanchez was placed under preventive suspension effective June 3,

2011 until the conclusion of the investigation by SLMC's Employee and Labor
Relations Department (ELRD) 19 which, thereafter, required her to explain why she
should not be terminated from service for "acts of dishonesty" due to her possession
of the questioned items in violation of Section 1, Rule I of the SLMC Code of
Discipline. 20 In response, she submitted a letter 21 dated June 13, 2011, which
merely reiterated her claims in her previous May 31, 2011 letter. She likewise
requested for a case conference, 22 which SLMC granted. 23 After hearing her side,
SLMC, on July 4, 2011, informed Sanchez of its decision to terminate her
employment effective closing hours of July 6, 2011. 24 This prompted her to file a
complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 07-
11042-11.
In her position paper, 25 Sanchez maintained her innocence, claiming that she had
no intention of bringing outside the SLMC's premises the questioned items since she
merely inadvertently left the pouch containing them in her bag as she got caught
up in work that day. She further asserted that she could not be found guilty of
pilferage since the questioned items found in her possession were neither SLMC's
nor its employees' property. She also stressed the fact that SLMC did not file any
criminal charges against her. Anent her supposed admission in her handwritten
letter, she claimed that she was unassisted by counsel when she executed the same
and, thus, was inadmissible for being unconstitutional. 26

For its part, 27 SLMC contended that Sanchez was validly dismissed for just cause as
she had committed theft in violation of Section 1, 28 Rule I of the SLMC Code of
Discipline, 29 which punishes acts of dishonesty, i.e., robbery, theft, pilferage, and
misappropriation of funds, with termination from service.

The LA Ruling

In a Decision 30 dated May 27, 2012, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Sanchez was
validly dismissed 31 for intentionally taking the property of SLMC's clients for her
own personal benefit, 32 which constitutes an act of dishonesty as provided under
SLMC's Code of Discipline. HEDCAS

According to the LA, Sanchez's act of theft was evinced by her attempt to bring the
questioned items that did not belong to her out of SLMC's premises; this was found
to be analogous to serious misconduct which is a just cause to dismiss her. 33 The
fact that the items she took were neither SLMC's nor her co-employees' property
was not found by the LA to be material since the SLMC Code of Discipline clearly
provides that acts of dishonesty committed to SLMC, its doctors, its employees, as
well as its customers, are punishable by a penalty of termination from service. 34 To
this, the LA opined that "[i]t is rather illogical to distinguish the persons with whom
the [said] acts may be committed as SLMC is also answerable to the properties of its
patients." 35 Moreover, the LA observed that Sanchez was aware of SLMC's strict
policy regarding the taking of hospital/medical items as evidenced by her
handwritten letter, 36 but nonetheless committed the said misconduct. Finally, the
LA pointed out that SLMC's non-filing of a criminal case against Sanchez did not
preclude a determination of her serious misconduct, considering that the filing of a
criminal case is entirely separate and distinct from the determination of just cause
for termination of employment. 37

Aggrieved, Sanchez appealed 38 to the NLRC.

The NLRC Ruling

In a Decision 39 dated November 19, 2012, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA
ruling, and held that Sanchez was illegally dismissed.

The NLRC declared that the alleged violation of Sanchez was a unique case,
considering that keeping excess hospital stocks or "hoarding" was an admitted
practice amongst nurses in the Pediatric Unit which had been tolerated by SLMC
management for a long time. 40 The NLRC held that while Sanchez expressed
remorse for her misconduct in her handwritten letter, she manifested that she only
"hoarded" the questioned items for future use in case their medical supplies are
depleted, and not for her personal benefit. 41 It further held that SLMC failed to
establish that Sanchez was motivated by ill-will when she brought out the
questioned items, noting: (a) the testimony of SG Manzanade during the conference
before the ELRD of Sanchez's demeanor when she was apprehended, i.e. , "[d]i
naman siya masyado nataranta," 42 and her consequent offer to return the pouch;
43 and ( b) that the said pouch was not hidden underneath the bag. 44 Finally, the
NLRC concluded that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and the one (1)
month preventive suspension already imposed on and served by Sanchez was the
appropriate penalty. 45 Accordingly, the NLRC ordered her reinstatement, and the
payment of backwages, other benefits, and attorney's fees. 46

Unconvinced, SLMC moved for reconsideration 47 which was, however, denied in a

Resolution 48 dated January 14, 2013. Thus, it filed a petition for certiorari 49 before
the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision 50 dated November 21, 2013, the CA upheld the NLRC, ruling that the
latter did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding that Sanchez was illegally
dismissed.

It ruled that Sanchez's offense did not qualify as serious misconduct, given that: (a)
the questioned items found in her possession were not SLMC property since said
items were paid for by discharged patients, thus discounting any material or
economic damage on SLMC's part; (b) the retention of excess medical supplies was
an admitted practice amongst nurses in the Pediatric Unit which was tolerated by
SLMC; (c) it was illogical for Sanchez to leave the pouch in her bag since she would
be subjected to a routine inspection; (d) Sanchez's lack of intention to bring out the
pouch was manifested by her composed demeanor upon apprehension and offer to
return the pouch to the treatment room; and (e) had SLMC honestly believed that
Sanchez committed theft or pilferage, it should have filed the appropriate criminal
case, but failed to do so. 51 Moreover, while the CA recognized that SLMC had the
management prerogative to discipline its erring employees, it, however, declared
that such right must be exercised humanely. As such, SLMC should only impose
penalties commensurate with the degree of infraction. Considering that there was
no indication that Sanchez's actions were perpetrated for self-interest or for an
unlawful objective, the penalty of dismissal imposed on her was grossly oppressive
and disproportionate to her offense. 52

Dissatisfied, SLMC sought for reconsideration, 53 but was denied in a Resolution 54

dated April 4, 2014, hence, this petition.
DaTICc

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue to be resolved is whether or not Sanchez was illegally dismissed by
SLMC.
 The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

The right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, aptly called

"management prerogative," gives employers the freedom to regulate, according to
their discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work
assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working
regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the
discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. 55 In this light, courts often decline to
interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. In fact, labor laws discourage
interference in employers' judgment concerning the conduct of their business. 56

Among the employer's management prerogatives is the right to prescribe

reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business
or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to
assure that the same would be complied with. At the same time, the employee has
the corollary duty to obey all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the
employer; and willful or intentional disobedience thereto, as a general rule, justifies
termination of the contract of service and the dismissal of the employee. 57 Article
296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code provides: 58

Article 296. Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an

employment for any of the following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of

the lawful orders of his employer or his representative in
connection with his work;

xxx xxx xxx

Note that for an employee to be validly dismissed on this ground, the employer's
orders, regulations, or instructions must be: (1) reasonable and lawful, (2)
sufficiently known to the employee , and (3) in connection with the duties
which the employee has been engaged to discharge." 59

Tested against the foregoing, the Court finds that Sanchez was validly dismissed by
SLMC for her willful disregard and disobedience of Section 1, Rule I of the SLMC
Code of Discipline, which reasonably punishes acts of dishonesty, i.e., "theft,
pilferage of hospital or co-employee property, . . . or its attempt in any form or
m an n er from the hospital, co-employees, doctors, visitors, [and] customers
(external and internal)" with termination from employment. 60 Such act is
obviously connected with Sanchez's work, who, as a staff nurse, is tasked with the
proper stewardship of medical supplies. Significantly, records show that Sanchez
made a categorical admission 61 in her handwritten letter 62 — i.e., "[k]ahit alam
kong bawal ay nagawa kong [makapag-uwi] ng gamit" 63 — that despite her
knowledge of its express prohibition under the SLMC Code of Discipline, she still
knowingly brought out the subject medical items with her. It is apt to clarify that
SLMC cannot be faulted in construing the taking of the questioned items as an act of
dishonesty (particularly, as theft, pilferage, or its attempt in any form or manner)
considering that the intent to gain may be reasonably presumed from the furtive
taking of useful property appertaining to another. 64 Note that Section 1, Rule 1 of
the SLMC Code of Discipline is further supplemented by the company policy
requiring the turn-over of excess medical supplies/items for proper handling 65 and
providing a restriction on taking and bringing such items out of the SLMC premises
without the proper authorization or "pass" from the official concerned, 66 which
Sanchez was equally aware thereof. 67 Nevertheless, Sanchez failed to turn-over the
questioned items and, instead, "hoarded" them, as purportedly practiced by the
other staff members in the Pediatric Unit. As it is clear that the company policies
subject of this case are reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to the employee,
and evidently connected with the latter's work, the Court concludes that SLMC
dismissed Sanchez for a just cause. EScaIT

On a related point, the Court observes that there lies no competent basis to support
the common observation of the NLRC and the CA that the retention of excess
medical supplies was a tolerated practice among the nurses at the Pediatric Unit.
While there were previous incidents of "hoarding," it appears that such acts were —
in similar fashion — furtively made and the items secretly kept, as any excess items
found in the concerned nurse's possession would have to be confiscated. 68 Hence,
the fact that no one was caught and/or sanctioned for transgressing the prohibition
therefor does not mean that the so-called "hoarding" practice was tolerated by
SLMC. Besides, whatever maybe the justification behind the violation of the
company rules regarding excess medical supplies is immaterial since it has been
established that an infraction was deliberately committed. 69 Doubtless, the
deliberate disregard or disobedience of rules by the employee cannot be
countenanced as it may encourage him or her to do even worse and will render a
mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe. 70

Finally, the Court finds it inconsequential that SLMC has not suffered any actual
damage. While damage aggravates the charge, its absence does not mitigate nor
negate the employee's liability. 71 Neither is SLMC's non-filing of the appropriate
criminal charges relevant to this analysis. An employee's guilt or innocence in a
criminal case is not determinative of the existence of a just or authorized cause for
his or her dismissal. 72 It is well-settled that conviction in a criminal case is not
necessary to find just cause for termination of employment, 73 as in this case.
Criminal and labor cases involving an employee arising from the same infraction are
separate and distinct proceedings which should not arrest any judgment from one to
the other.

As it stands, the Court thus holds that the dismissal of Sanchez was for a just cause,
supported by substantial evidence, and is therefore in order. By declaring otherwise,
bereft of any substantial bases, the NLRC issued a patently and grossly erroneous
ruling tantamount to grave abuse of discretion, which, in turn, means that the CA
erred when it affirmed the same. In consequence, the grant of the present petition
is warranted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 21, 2013
and the Resolution dated April 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
129108 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter's Decision dated May
27, 2012 in NLRC Case No. NCR 07-11042-11 finding respondent Maria Theresa V.
Sanchez to have been validly dismissed by petitioner St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.
is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-35.

2. Id. at 40-50. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices
Amelita G. Tolentino and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.

3. Id. at 52-53.

4. Id. at 255-265. Penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palaña with Presiding

Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo and Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena
concurring.

5. Id. at 285-286.

6. Id. at 255.

7. Id. at 89 and 200.

8. Id. at 108. The total value of the medical items seized from Sanchez allegedly
amounted to P615.00.

9. Id. at 41.

10. Id.

11. See Incident Report dated May 29, 2011; id. at 112.

12. Id. at 110.

13. Id.

14. Id. at 108.

15. Id. at 201.

16. Id. at 111.

17. Id. at 114.

18. Such as black ball pen, tri-colored pen, stamp/trodat, bandage, scissors, and
calculator. Id.
19. See memorandum dated June 1, 2011 of Labor Relations Manager, ELRD
Benjamin C. Altavas; id. at 168.

20. See memorandum dated June 9, 2011 of Labor Relations Manager Allan "Jeremy"
Raymond R. Ignacio; id. at 115.

21. Id. at 116-117.

22. Id. at 117.

23. Hearings were conducted on June 14 and 15, 2011; id. at 118 and 172-181.

24. See memorandum dated July 4, 2011; id. at 118-119.

25. Dated September 14, 2011. Id. at 154-164.

26. See id. at 203-206.

27. Id. at 88-107. Dated September 13, 2011.

28. Id. at 125. Section 1, Rule I of SLMC Code of Discipline reads:

RULE I — ACTS OF DISHONESTY

Section 1. Robbery, Theft, Pilferage, and Misappropriation of

Funds. —

Robbery, theft, pilferage of hospital or co-employee property, and/or

misappropriation of funds or its attempt in any form or manner from the hospital,
co-employees, doctors, visitors, customers (external and internal).

29. Rollo, pp. 120-138.

30. Id. at 199-215. Penned by Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan.

31. Id. at 208.

32. Id. at 210.

33. Id. at 209.

34. Id. at 211-212.

35. Id. at 212.

36. Id. at 213.

37. Id. at 214.

38. See Notice of Appeal dated June 21, 2012; id. at 216-217.

39. Id. at 255-265.

40. Id. at 261.

41. Id. at 261-262.

42. Id. at 262. See also minutes of the case conference before the ELRD held on
June 14, 2011; id. at 174.

43. Id. at 174 and 263.

44. Id. at 262.

45. Id. at 263.

46. Id. at 263-264.

47. See Motion for Reconsideration dated December 7, 2012; id. at 266-283.

48. Id. at 285-286.

49. Dated March 22, 2013. Id. at 287-311.

50. Id. at 40-50.

51. Id. at 47-48.

52. Id. at 48-49.

53. See Motion for Reconsideration dated December 17, 2013; id. at 54-69.

54. Id. at 52-53.

55. Deles, Jr. v. NLRC, 384 Phil. 271, 281-282 (2000).

56. See Phil. Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Aguinaldo, 499 Phil. 215, 225 (2005).

57. Malabago v. NLRC, 533 Phil. 292, 300 (2006).

58. AS renumbered by Republic Act No. (RA) 10151, entitled "AN ACT ALLOWING
THE EMPLOYMENT OF NIGHT WORKERS, THEREBY REPEALING ARTICLES 130 AND
131 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBER FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-TWO, AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES," as
further amended by RA 10361, entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING POLICIES FOR THE
PROTECTION AND WELFARE OF DOMESTIC WORKERS," otherwise known as the
"Domestic Workers Act" or "Batas Kasambahay."

59. Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 75907,
March 23, 1992, 207 SCRA 415, 421.

60. Rollo, p. 125.

61. Note that Sanchez's objection on the admissibility of her handwritten letter based
on the absence of counsel at the time of its execution (an invocation of
paragraphs 1 and 3, Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution) remains
untenable considering that the present case does not involve a custodial
investigation conducted by government agents, but merely an
 inspection/investigation conducted by private individuals, i.e., the security of SLMC.
In People v. Marti [271 Phil. 51, 61 (1991)], it was held that "the Bill of Rights
embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private
individuals."

62. Rollo, p. 110.

63. Id.

64. See Beltran, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 181355, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 728, 744-
745.

65. In the memorandum dated July 4, 2011, it was mentioned that excess medical
items "bought and paid for by the patients' parents or relatives . . . should [be]
surrendered for proper handling as specified in the Computerized Nursing
Transcription System, specifically the [turn-in] of served, but unused, and
unserved items." See rollo, p. 118.

66. See Section 7.c. of the SLMC Code of Discipline; id. at 126. See also id. at 119.

67. As admitted in her handwritten letter. Id. at 110.

68. During the case conference before the ELRD, Ms. Ruth Elejorde, the Nurse Unit
Manager at the SLMC Pediatric Unit, testified in this wise:

". . . dati kasi nangyari na yan noon, na parang hoarding na tinatawag. Tapos
may box sila noon na pinagtataguan. Ngayon, yung mga ano nila, siguro as a
manager tinatago rin nila sa akin kasi alam nila na ico-confiscate ko. So meron
silang mga pouch. Kaya lang di ko kasi ugaling magbukas kasi privacy issue naman
po yun sa kanila." (See rollo, p. 261.)

69. See San Miguel Corporation v. Ubaldo, G.R. No. 92859, February 1, 1993, 218
SCRA 293, 300.

70. Areno, Jr. v. Skycable PCC-Baguio, 625 Phil. 561, 579 (2010).

71. Panuncillo v. CAP Philippines, Inc., 544 Phil. 256, 268 (2007), citing Lopez v.
NLRC (2nd Div.), 513 Phil. 731, 738 (2005).

72. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of the Phils. v. Guanzon, 254 Phil. 578, 584 (1989).

73. Reno Foods, Inc. and/or Khu v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-
Katipunan, 629 Phil. 247, 256 (2010).