Panaligan vs. Phyvita

ART.
118 (CASE #1)
NORMAN PANALIGAN, IRENEO VILLAJIN, AND GABRIEL

PENILLA, Petitioners, v. PHYVITA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202086, June 21, 2017
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Doctrine: In order to dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence,
the employee must be guilty of an actual and willful breach of duty duly supported by
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
FACTS: Petitioner Phyvita Enterprises Corporation x x x [respondent herein] is a

domestic corporation organized and existing under the [sic] Philippine laws engaged in
the business of health club massage parlor, spa and other related services under the name
and style of Starfleet Reflex Zone.
Private respondents [petitioners herein] Norman Panaligan ("Panaligan"), Ireneo Villajin
("Villajin") and Gabriel Penilla ("Penilla") x x x were the employees of Phyvita assigned
as Roomboys at Starfleet.
Sometime [on] 25 January 2005, the Finance Assistant of Phyvita for Starfleet Girly
Enriquez ("Enriquez") discovered that the amount of One Hundred Eighty Thousand
Pesos (Php180,000.00) representing their sales for 22nd, 23rd and 24th of January 2005
[was] missing including receipts, payrolls, credit card receipts and sales invoices. She
immediately reported the same to her immediate superior Jorge Rafols ("Jorge Rafols").
As such, they searched for the missing documents and cash. However, their search
remained futile.
Jorge Rafols and Enriquez reported the incident to their Vice President for Operations
Henry Ting ("Henry Ting").
As advised by Phyvita's Legal Officer Maria Joy Ting ("Joy Ting"), they reported the
alleged theft incident to the Parañaque City Police Station to conduct an investigation.
However, the Parañaque Police were not able to gather sufficient information that would
lead them as to who committed said theft. Being unsuccessful, the said police
investigation was merely entered into the police blotter.
In the interim, on 28 April 2005, individual Office Memoranda were issued by Starfleet's
Assistant Operations Manager Jerry Rafols ("Jerry Rafols") against [Petitioners] directing
them to explain in writing why no disciplinary action shall be imposed against them for
alleged violation of Class D1.14 of Starfleet's rules and regulation[s], particularly any act
of dishonesty, whether the company has incurred loss or not[,] more specifically their
alleged involvement in a theft wherein important documents and papers including cash
were lost which happened last 25 January 2005 at [Phyvita]'s establishment.
Acting on the said Office Memoranda, only Panaligan submitted his hand written
explanation which merely stated "wala ako kinalaman sa ibinibintang [sakin]."
Having failed to participate in the investigation proceedings conducted by Phyvita,
Memoranda dated 26 May 2005 were issued against [Petitioners] informing them that
they are terminated from their employment on the ground that they violated the
company's rules and regulation[s] by stealing company documents and cash. They were
also informed that such termination is without prejudice to the filing of criminal charges
against them.
[Petitioners] filed the complaint with the NLRC alleging, inter alia, illegal dismissal and
payment of separation pay.
LA RULING: Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera declared in his Decision dated July 31,
2007 that PANALIGAN, et al., were legally terminated from employment on the ground
of loss of trust and confidence.
NLRC RULING: Reversed and set aside by the NLRC in its Decision dated June 9,
2009. The NLRC arrived at the conclusion that PANALIGAN, et al., were illegally
dismissed from employment.
CA RULING: The appellate court reversed the NLRC issuances and reinstated the July
31, 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter
ISSUE: Whether or not there exists just and valid cause for the termination of
PANALIGAN, et al.'s, employment by PHYVITA.
SC RULING: NO. There is no just and valid cause for the termination.
ARTICLE 297. 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 representative in connection with his
work;(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;(c) Fraud or willful
breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative;(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person
of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representative; and(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct; it is the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. The misconduct, to be serious
within the meaning of the Labor Code, must be of such a grave and aggravated character
and not merely trivial or unimportant. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a
just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the
employee's duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue
working for the employer.
On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination of
employment, is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where
greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is
correspondingly expected. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for
which an employee is penalized.
Position of trust and confidence, i.e., managerial personnel or those vested with powers
and prerogatives to lay down management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees; or (2) is routinely charged with the
care and custody of the employer's money or property, i.e., cashiers, auditors, property
custodians, or those who, in normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly
handle significant amounts of money or property.
In the case at bar, PHYVITA failed to adduce substantial evidence that would clearly
demonstrate that PANALIGAN, et al., have committed serious misconduct or have
performed actions that would warrant the loss of trust and confidence reposed upon them
by their employer. Contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Labor
Arbiter, no substantial evidence supports the allegation of theft leveled by PHYVITA
against PANALIGAN, et al. - the said criminal act being the underlying reason for the
dismissal of the latter from being employees of the former.
The records of this case clearly indicate that no direct evidence was presented to link
PANALIGAN, et al., to the theft that they allegedly committed. In fact, the questioned
payroll sheets that PANALIGAN, et al., attached to the labor complaint they filed before
the DOLE-NCR are the only concrete proof that PHYVITA used to support its allegation.
However, the said documents were not specifically enumerated as among the stolen items
in the police report of the alleged incident of theft, while a previous incident report
merely stated that "several copies of payroll" were taken. PHYVITA first claimed that
these payroll sheets allegedly stolen from Enriquez's safekeeping were the same ones in
PANALIGAN, et al.'s, possession when its employee, Jesse Pangilinan (Pangilinan),
executed an affidavit to that effect right after attending a preliminary hearing of the labor
case initiated by PANALIGAN, et al. Pangilinan's statement was supported by the joint
affidavit made by Rommel Garcia (Garcia) and Jay R Kasing (Kasing) who were also in
PHYVITA's employ. The problem with Pangilinan's statement is that it is self-serving
since it favors his employer which is involved in a labor dispute with PANALIGAN, et
al., and it does not show criminal liability since it only establishes PANALIGAN, et al.'s,
possession of the questioned payroll sheets but not the fact that they themselves stole the
same. Furthermore, Pangilinan's statement is inconsistent with the other facts on record.
According to Pangilinan's affidavit, he only knew that the questioned payroll sheets were
in the possession of PANALIGAN, et al., when they presented the same during the May
29, 2005 DOLE-NCR hearing. The aforementioned date is crucial to this case because
the month before, or on April 28, 2005, PANALIGAN, et al., were preventively
suspended from work by PHYVITA and given written notices to explain in writing
within twenty-four (24) hours why they should not face disciplinary sanction for their
alleged involvement in the January 25, 2005 incident of theft.[24] Due to their non-
appearance at the scheduled in-house investigation and conference, PANALIGAN, et al.,
were then served individual notices dated May 26, 2005, that they were terminated from
PHYVITA's employ for their alleged participation in the theft. Thereafter, sometime in
June 2005, Garcia and Kasing purportedly came forward and pointed to PANALIGAN, et
al., as among the perpetrators of the alleged theft. Considering the said chronology of
events, there was no clear ground for PHYVITA to preventively suspend and later
terminate the services of PANALIGAN, et al., when the company's actions predated the
bases for doing so - the discovery of the questioned payroll sheets by Pangilinan
allegedly on May 29, 2005 as stated in his affidavit and the revelations of Garcia and
Kasing allegedly made sometime in June 2005. Alternatively stated, respondent company
had charged and terminated PANALIGAN, et al., before it had even obtained its
supposed "proof' of their misdeed.

Panaligan vs. Phyvita

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Panaligan vs. Phyvita

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Panaligan vs. Phyvita

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ART.

118 (CASE #1)

NORMAN PANALIGAN, IRENEO VILLAJIN, AND GABRIEL

FACTS: Petitioner Phyvita Enterprises Corporation x x x [respondent herein] is a

You might also like