Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 192826 February 27, 2013
PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
MA. FLORA M. EPISCOPE, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 26,
2010 Decision1and July 5, 2010
Resolution2 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 102188. The CA reversed and
set aside the Resolutions3 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) dared May 30, 2007
and November 14, 2007 in NLRC NCR CA No.
047187-06/NLRC NCR-12-13621-04 and thereby
declared respondent to have been illegally
dismissed.
Petitioner Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. (PPHI) is
the owner and operator of the Westin Philippine
Plaza Hotel (Hotel). Respondent Ma. Flora M.
Episcope (Episcope) was employedby PPHI since
July 24, 1984 until she was terminated on November
4, 2004 for dishonesty, willful disobedience and
serious misconduct amounting to loss of trust and
confidence.
In order to check the performance of the employees
and the services in the different outlets of the Hotel,
PPHI regularly employed the services of
independent auditors and/or professional
shoppers.For this purpose,Sycip, Gorres and
Velayoauditors dined at the Hotel’s Café Plaza on
August 28, 2004. After dining, the auditors were
billed the total amount of ₱2,306.65, representing
the cost of the food and drinks they had ordered
under Check No. 565938.4 Based on the audit
report5 submitted to PPHI, Episcope was one of
those who attended to the auditors and was the one
who handed the check and received the payment of
₱2,400.00. She thereafter returned Check No.
565938, which was stamp marked "paid," together
with the change.
Upon verification of the foregoing check receipt with
the sales report of Café Plaza, it was discovered that
the Hotel's copy of the receipt bore a discount of
₱906.456on account of the use of a Starwood
Privilege Discount Card registered in the name of
Peter A. Pamintuan, while the receipt issued by
Episcope to the auditors reflected the undiscounted
amount of ₱2,306.65considering that none of the
auditors had such discount card. In view of the
foregoing, the amount actually remitted to the Hotel
was only ₱1,400.20thus, leaving a shortage of
₱906.45.
On September 30, 2004, the Hotel issued a Show-
Cause Memo7 directing Episcope to explain in
writing why no disciplinary action should be taken
against her for the questionable and invaliddiscount
application on the settlement check issued to the
auditors on August 28, 2004.
In her handwritten letter,8 Episcope admitted that
she was on duty on the date and time in question
but alleged that she could no longer recall if the
concerned guests presented a Starwood Privilege
Discount Card.
On October 4, 2004, Episcope was placed on
preventive suspension without pay.9 During the
administrative hearing on October 6, 2004,
Episcope, who was therein assisted by the Union
President and four union representatives from
National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and
Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN)-Philippine Plaza
Hotel Chapter, confirmed the fact that she was the
one who presented the subject check and received
the corresponding payment from the guests. She,
however, denied stampingthe said check as "paid"
or that she gaveany discount without a discount
card, explaining that she could not have committed
such acts given that all receipts and discount
applications were handled by the cashier. But when
asked why the discounted receipt was not given to
the guests, she merely replied that she could no
longer remember. In a separate inquiry, the cashier
of Café Plaza, however, maintained that a Starwood
Privilege Discount Card must have been presented
during the said incident given that there was a
Discount Slip10 and a stamped receipt indicating
such discounted payment.11
Finding Episcope to have failed to sufficiently
explain the questionable discount application on the
settlement bill of the auditors, her employment was
terminated for committing acts ofdishonesty, which
was classified as a Class D offense under the
Hotel's Code of Discipline, as well as for willful
disobedience, serious misconduct and loss of trust
and confidence.12
Aggrieved, Episcope filed a complaint13 for illegal
dismissal with prayer for payment of damages and
attorney's fees against PPHI before the NLRC
docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-12-13621-04.
Rulings of the LA and the NLRC
On October 20, 2005, the Labor Arbiter (LA)
rendered a Decision in favor of PPHI and thus,
dismissed Episcope's complaint for illegal
dismissal.14 The LA found that there was substantial
evidence to support the charge of improper discount
application and observed that the said act resulted
to a loss on the part of the Hotel. Accordingly, the LA
held that Episcope's actions rendered her unworthy
of the trust and confidence demanded by her
position which thus, warranted her dismissal.
On appeal,15 the NLRC affirmed the LA's decision in
theMay 30, 2007 Resolution.16 Episcope's motion for
reconsideration17 was likewise denied in the
November 14, 2007 Resolution.18
Ruling of the CA
On certiorari, the CA gave due course to the petition
and reversed the NLRC's Decision.19 It found the
report submitted by the auditors grossly insufficient
to support the conclusion that Episcope was guilty of
the charges imputed against her. It described the
report as a mere transaction account in tabular
form,bereft of any evidentiary worth. It was unsigned
and bore no indication of her alleged culpability. The
CA likewise did not give credence to the minutes of
the administrative hearing because it was based on
the same unaudited report. Hence, the CA(1)
declared Episcope's dismissal illegal;(2) ordered her
reinstatement to her former position without loss of
seniority rights and benefits under the Labor Code;
and (3) remanded the case to the NLRC for further
proceedings on her money claims and other
benefits. The dispositive portion of the CA'sDecision
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition
is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated May
30, 2007 and November 14, 2007 of the public
respondent NLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner is hereby ordered reinstated to her former
position without loss of seniority rights and benefits
under the Labor Code. The case is hereby
remanded to the NLRC for further proceedings on
her money claims and other benefits.
SO ORDERED.20
Dissatisfied, PPHI moved for reconsideration which
was, however, denied in the assailed July 5, 2010
Resolution.21
Hence, the instant petition anchored on the sole
ground that:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
SERIOUSLY ERRED AND RULED CONTRARY TO
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT ACTED
AS A TRIER OF FACTS AND ORDERED THE
REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT AND
PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES.22
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is impressed with merit.
At the outset, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the
CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally
limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not
the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is
not a trier of facts. The rule, however, is not ironclad
and a departure therefrom may be warranted where
the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the
findings and conclusions of the trial court or quasi-
judicial agency,23 as in this case. There is therefore a
need to review the records to determine which of
them should be preferred as more conformable to
evidentiary facts.24
After a judicious review of the records, as well as the
respective allegations and defenses of the parties,
the Court is constrained to reverse the findings and
conclusion of the CA.
Article 293 (formerly Article 279) of the Labor
Code25 provides that the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except only
for a just or authorized cause. If an employer
terminates the employment without a just or
authorized cause, then the employee is considered
to have been illegally dismissed and is thus, entitled
to reinstatement or in certain instances, separation
pay in lieu thereof, as well as the payment of
backwages.
Among the just causes for termination isthe
employer’s loss of trust and confidence in its
employee. Article 296 (c) (formerly Article 282 [c]) of
the Labor Code provides that an employer may
terminate the services of an employee for fraud or
willful breach of the trust reposed in him. But in order
for the said cause to be properly invoked, certain
requirements must be complied with namely,(1) the
employee concerned must be holding a position
of trust and confidence and (2) there must be an
act that would justify the loss of trust and
confidence.26
It is noteworthy to mention that there are two classes
of positions of trust: on the one hand, there are
managerial employees whose primary duty consists
of the management of the establishment in which
they are employed or of a department or a
subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members
of the managerial staff; on the other hand, there are
fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers,
auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the
normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle
significant amounts of money or property. These
employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely
charged with the care and custody of the employer's
money or property, and are thus classified as
occupying positions of trust and
confidence.27 Episcope belongs to this latter class
and therefore, occupies a position of trust and
confidence.
As may be readily gleaned from the records,
Episcope was employed by PPHI as a service
attendant in its Café Plaza. In this regard, she was
tasked to attend to dining guests, handle their bills
and receive their payments for transmittal to the
cashier. It is also apparent that whenever discount
cards are presented, she maintained the
responsibility to take them to the cashier for the
application of discounts. Being therefore involved in
the handling of company funds, Episcope is
undeniably considered an employee occupying a
position of trust and confidence and as such, was
expected to act with utmost honesty and fidelity.
Anent the second requisite, records likewise reveal
that Episcope committed an act which justified her
employer’s (PPHI’s) loss of trust and confidence in
her.
Primarily, it is apt to point out that proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not required in dismissing an
employee on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence; it is sufficient that there lies some basis
to believe that the employee concerned is
responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of
the employee's participation therein rendered him
absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence
demanded by his position.
On this point, the Court, in the case of Bristol Myers
Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Baban,28 citing Atlas Fertilizer
Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission,29 ruled as follows:
As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider
latitude of discretion in terminating the services of
employees who perform functions by which their
nature require the employer's full trust and
confidence. Mere existence of basis for believing
that the employee has breached the trust and
confidence of the employer is sufficient and does not
require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, when
an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his
employer has ample reason to distrust him, a labor
tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to
dismiss him.
In addition, it must be observed that only substantial
evidence is required in order to support a finding that
an employer’s trust and confidence accorded to its
employee had been breached. As explained in the
case of Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies:30
xxx, the language of Article 282(c) [now, Article 296
(c)]of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and
confidence must be based on willful breach of the
trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such
breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly,
and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as
distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.
Moreover, it must be based on substantial
evidence and not on the employer's whims or
caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee
would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.
Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately
used as a shield by the employer against a claim
that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.
And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal,
the act complained of must be work-related and
shows that the employee concerned is unfit to
continue working for the employer. In addition, loss
of confidence as a just cause for termination of
employment is premised on the fact that the
employee concerned holds a position of
responsibility, trust and confidence or that the
employee concerned is entrusted with confidence
with respect to delicate matters, such as the
handling or care and protection of the property and
assets of the employer. The betrayal of this trust is
the essence of the offense for which an employee is
penalized. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the present case, records would show that
Episcope committed acts of dishonesty which
resulted to monetary loss on the part of PPHI and
more significantly, led to the latter’s loss of trust and
confidence in her. Notwithstanding the impaired
probative value of the unaudited and unsigned
auditor’s report, the totality of circumstances
supports the foregoing findings:
First, it remains unrefuted that Episcope attended to
the auditors when they dined at the Café Plaza on
the date and time in question. In fact, Episcope
herself admitted that she tendered Check No.
565938 bearing the amount of ₱2,306.65 and
received the amount of ₱2,400.00 as payment;
Second, it is likewiseundisputed that the check
receipt on file with the Hotel for the same transaction
reflected only the amount of ₱1,400.20 in view of the
application of a certain Starwood Privilege Discount
Card registered in the name of one Peter
Pamintuan, while the receipt given to the auditors
bore the undiscounted amount of ₱2,306.65 which
thus, resulted to a ₱906.45 discrepancy. During the
proceedings, both receipts were actually presented
in evidence yet, Episcope never interposed any
objection on the authenticity of the same; and
Third, when asked to explain the said discrepancy,
Episcope merelyimputed culpability onthe part of the
cashier, whom she claimed prepared all the receipts
that were returned to the guests.
From the foregoing incidents, it is clear that
Episcope was remiss in her duty to carefully account
for the money she received from the cafe's guests. It
must be observed that though the receipts were
prepared by the cashier, Episcope; as a service
attendant,. was the one who actually handled the
money tendered to her by the hotel clients. In this
regard, prudence dictates that Episcope should have
at least known why there was a shortage in
remittance. Yet when asked, Episcope could not
offer any plausible explanation but merely shifted the
blame to the cashier. Irrefragably, as an employee
who was routinely charged with the care and
custody of her employer's money, Episcope was
expected to have been more circumspect in the
performance of her duties as a service attendant.
This she failed to observe in the case at bar which
thus, justifies PPHI's loss of trust and confidence in
her as well as her consequent dismissal.
Perforce, having substantially established the actual
breach of duty committed by Episcope and the due
observance of due process, no grave abuse of
discretion can be imputed against the NLRC in
sustaining the finding of the LA that her dismissal
was proper under the circumstances.
Finally, with respect to Episcope's other monetary
claims, namely, service incentive leave credits and
13th month pay, the Court finds no error on the part
of the LA when it denied the foregoing claims
considering that Episcope failed to proffer any
legitimate basis to substantiate her entitlement to the
same.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
is GRANTED. The assailed March 26, 2010
Decision and July 5, 2010 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102188
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of
the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC,
dismissing respondent Ma. Flora M. Episcope's
complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary
claims is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MARIANO C. DEL JOSE PORTUGAL
CASTILLO PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA*1âwphi1
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice