G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015 - ST.

LUKE’S Pilferage, and Misappropriation of Humihingi po ako ng tawad sa aking ginawa.

MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA Funds. 6cralawred Isinakripisyo ko ang hindi pagiging “toxic” sa
THERESA V. SANCHEZ, Respondent. pagkuha ng gamit para sa bagay na alam kong
Records reveal that at the end of her shift on mali. Inaamin ko na ako’y naging madamot,
May 29, 2011, Sanchez passed through the pasuway at makasalanan. Inuna ko ang
SLMC Centralization Entrance/Exit where she comfort ko keysa gumawa ng tama.
was subjected to the standard inspection Manikluhod po akong humihingi ng tawad.
procedure by the security personnel.  In the
course thereof, the Security Guard on-duty, Sorry po. Sorry po. Sorry po
Jaime Manzanade  (SG Manzanade), noticed a talaga.13cralawlawlibrary
pouch in her bag and asked her to open the
same.7 When opened, said pouch contained the
In a memorandum14 of even date, the IHSD,
FIRST DIVISION following assortment of medical stocks which
Customer Affairs Division, through Duty Officer
were subsequently confiscated: (a) Syringe
Hernani R. Janayon, apprised SLMC of the
10cl [4 pieces]; (b) Syringe 5cl [3 pieces]; (c)
G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015 incident, highlighting that Sanchez expressly
Syringe 3cl [3 pieces]; (d) Micropore [1 piece];
admitted that she intentionally brought out the
(e) Cotton Balls [1 pack]; (f) Neoflon g26 [1
questioned items.
ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, piece]; (g) Venofix 25 [2 pieces]; and (h)
INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA THERESA V. Gloves [4 pieces] (questioned items).8 Sanchez
An initial investigation was also conducted by
SANCHEZ, Respondent. asked SG Manzanade if she could just return
the SLMC Division of Nursing15 which thereafter
the pouch inside the treatment room; however,
served Sanchez a notice to explain.16cralawred
DECISION she was not allowed to do so.9 Instead, she
was brought to the SLMC In-House Security
On May 31, 2011, Sanchez submitted an
Department (IHSD) where she was directed to
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Incident Report Addendum17 (May 31, 2011
write an Incident Report explaining why she
letter), explaining that the questioned items
had the questioned items in her
Assailed in this petition for review came from the medication drawers of patients
possession.10 She complied11 with the directive
on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated who had already been discharged, and, as
and also submitted an undated handwritten
November 21, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated similarly practiced by the other staff members,
letter of apology12 (handwritten letter) which
April 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in she started saving these items as excess
reads as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CA-G.R. SP No. 129108 which affirmed the stocks in her pouch, along with other basic
Decision4 dated November 19, 2012 and the items that she uses during her shift. 18 She then
To In-House Security, put the pouch inside the lowest drawer of the
Resolution5 dated January 14, 2013 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in bedside table in the treatment room for use in
I am very sorry for bringing things from immediate procedures in case replenishment of
NLRC LAC No. 06-001858-12, declaring the [SLMC] inside my bag. Pasensya na po. Taos-
dismissal of respondent Maria Theresa V. stocks gets delayed. However, on the day of
puso po akong humihingi ng tawad sa aking the incident, she failed to return the pouch
Sanchez (Sanchez) pagkakasala, Alam ko po na ako ay nagkamali.
illegal.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary inside the medication drawer upon getting her
Hindi ko po dapat dinala yung mga gamit sa tri-colored pen and calculator and, instead,
hospital. Hindi ko po alam kung [paano] ako placed it inside her bag. Eventually, she forgot
The Facts magsisimulang humingi ng patawad. Kahit about the same as she got caught up in work,
alam kong bawal ay nagawa kong makapag until it was noticed by the guard on duty on
On June 29, 2009, Sanchez was hired by uwi ng gamit. Marami pang gamit dahil sa her way out of SMLC’s premises.
petitioner St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. naipon po. Paisa-isa nagagawa kong
(SLMC) as a Staff Nurse, and was eventually makakuha pag nakakalimutan kong isoli. Hindi Consequently, Sanchez was placed under
assigned at SLMC, Quezon City’s Pediatric Unit ko na po naiwan sa nurse station dahil naisip preventive suspension effective June 3, 2011
until her termination on July 6, 2011 for her kong magagamit ko rin po pag minsang until the conclusion of the investigation by
purported violation of SLMC’s Code of nagkakaubusan ng stocks at talagang may SLMC’s Employee and Labor Relations
Discipline, particularly Section 1, Rule 1 on kailangan. Department (ELRD)19 which, thereafter,
Acts of Dishonesty, i.e., Robbery, Theft,
required her to explain why she should not be property of SLMC’s clients for her own personal SLMC management for a long time.40 The NLRC
terminated from service for “acts of benefit,32 which constitutes an act of held that while Sanchez expressed remorse for
dishonesty” due to her possession of the dishonesty as provided under SLMC’s Code of her misconduct in her handwritten letter, she
questioned items in violation of Section 1, Rule Discipline. manifested that she only “hoarded” the
I of the SLMC Code of Discipline.20 In response, questioned items for future use in case their
she submitted a letter21 dated June 13, 2011, According to the LA, Sanchez’s act of theft was medical supplies are depleted, and not for her
which merely reiterated her claims in her evinced by her attempt to bring the questioned personal benefit.41 It further held that SLMC
previous May 31, 2011 letter. She likewise items that did not belong to her out of SLMC’s failed to establish that Sanchez was motivated
requested for a case conference,22 which SLMC premises; this was found to be analogous to by ill-will when she brought out the questioned
granted.23 After hearing her side, SLMC, on serious misconduct which is a just cause to items, noting: (a) the testimony of SG
July 4, 2011, informed Sanchez of its decision dismiss her.33 The fact that the items she took Manzanade during the conference before the
to terminate her employment effective closing were neither SLMC’s nor her co-employees’ ELRD of Sanchez’s demeanor when she was
hours of July 6, 2011. 24 This prompted her to property was not found by the LA to be apprehended, i.e., “[d]i naman siya masyado
file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the material since the SLMC Code of Discipline nataranta,”42 and her consequent offer to
NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 07- clearly provides that acts of dishonesty return the pouch;43 and (b) that the said pouch
11042-11. committed to SLMC, its doctors, its employees, was not hidden underneath the bag.44 Finally,
as well as its customers, are punishable by a the NLRC concluded that the punishment of
In her position paper,25 Sanchez maintained penalty of termination from service.34 To this, dismissal was too harsh and the one (1) month
her innocence, claiming that she had no the LA opined that “[i]t is rather illogical to preventive suspension already imposed on and
intention of bringing outside the SLMC’s distinguish the persons with whom the [said] served by Sanchez was the appropriate
premises the questioned items since she acts may be committed as SLMC is also penalty.45 Accordingly, the NLRC ordered her
merely inadvertently left the pouch containing answerable to the properties of its reinstatement, and the payment of backwages,
them in her bag as she got caught up in work patients.”35 Moreover, the LA observed that other benefits, and attorney’s fees.46cralawred
that day. She further asserted that she could Sanchez was aware of SLMC’s strict policy
not be found guilty of pilferage since the regarding the taking of hospital/medical items Unconvinced, SLMC moved for
questioned items found in her possession were as evidenced by her handwritten letter, 36 but reconsideration47 which was, however, denied
neither SLMC’s nor its employees’ property. nonetheless committed the said misconduct. in a Resolution48 dated January 14, 2013.
She also stressed the fact that SLMC did not Finally, the LA pointed out that SLMC’s non- Thus, it filed a petition for certiorari49 before
file any criminal charges against her. Anent her filing of a criminal case against Sanchez did the CA.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
supposed admission in her handwritten letter, not preclude a determination of her serious
she claimed that she was unassisted by misconduct, considering that the filing of a The CA Ruling
counsel when she executed the same and, criminal case is entirely separate and distinct
thus, was inadmissible for being from the determination of just cause for In a Decision50 dated November 21, 2013, the
unconstitutional.26cralawred termination of employment.37cralawred CA upheld the NLRC, ruling that the latter did
not gravely abuse its discretion in finding that
For its part,27 SLMC contended that Sanchez Aggrieved, Sanchez appealed38 to the Sanchez was illegally dismissed.
was validly dismissed for just cause as she had NLRC.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
committed theft in violation of Section 1,28 Rule It ruled that Sanchez’s offense did not qualify
I of the SLMC Code of Discipline,29 which The NLRC Ruling as serious misconduct, given that: (a) the
punishes acts of dishonesty, i.e., robbery, questioned items found in her possession were
theft, pilferage, and misappropriation of funds, In a Decision39 dated November 19, 2012, the not SLMC property since said items were paid
with termination from NLRC reversed and set aside the LA ruling, and for by discharged patients, thus discounting
service.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary held that Sanchez was illegally dismissed. any material or economic damage on SLMC’s
part; (b) the retention of excess medical
The LA Ruling The NLRC declared that the alleged violation of supplies was an admitted practice amongst
Sanchez was a unique case, considering that nurses in the Pediatric Unit which was tolerated
In a Decision30 dated May 27, 2012, the Labor keeping excess hospital stocks or “hoarding” by SLMC; (c) it was illogical for Sanchez to
Arbiter (LA) ruled that Sanchez was validly was an admitted practice amongst nurses in leave the pouch in her bag since she would be
dismissed31 for intentionally taking the the Pediatric Unit which had been tolerated by subjected to a routine inspection; (d)
Sanchez’s lack of intention to bring out the of their business.56cralawred (external and internal)” with termination from
pouch was manifested by her composed employment.60 Such act is obviously connected
demeanor upon apprehension and offer to Among the employer’s management with Sanchez’s work, who, as a staff nurse, is
return the pouch to the treatment room; and prerogatives is the right to prescribe tasked with the proper stewardship of medical
(e) had SLMC honestly believed that Sanchez reasonable rules and regulations necessary or supplies. Significantly, records show that
committed theft or pilferage, it should have proper for the conduct of its business or Sanchez made a categorical admission61 in her
filed the appropriate criminal case, but failed to concern, to provide certain disciplinary handwritten letter62 – i.e., “[k]ahit alam kong
do so.51 Moreover, while the CA recognized measures to implement said rules and to bawal ay nagawa kong [makapag-uwi] ng
that SLMC had the management prerogative to assure that the same would be complied with. gamit”63 – that despite her knowledge of its
discipline its erring employees, it, however, At the same time, the employee has the express prohibition under the SLMC Code of
declared that such right must be exercised corollary duty to obey all reasonable rules, Discipline, she still knowingly brought out the
humanely. As such, SLMC should only impose orders, and instructions of the employer; and subject medical items with her. It is apt to
penalties commensurate with the degree of willful or intentional disobedience thereto, as a clarify that SLMC cannot be faulted in
infraction. Considering that there was no general rule, justifies termination of the construing the taking of the questioned items
indication that Sanchez’s actions were contract of service and the dismissal of the as an act of dishonesty (particularly, as theft,
perpetrated for self-interest or for an unlawful employee.57 Article 296 (formerly Article 282) pilferage, or its attempt in any form or
objective, the penalty of dismissal imposed on of the Labor Code provides:58cralawred manner) considering that the intent to gain
her was grossly oppressive and may be reasonably presumed from the furtive
disproportionate to her offense.52cralawred Article 296. Termination by Employer. - An taking of useful property appertaining to
employer may terminate an employment for another.64 Note that Section 1, Rule 1 of the
Dissatisfied, SLMC sought for any of the following causes: SLMC Code of Discipline is further
reconsideration,53 but was denied in a supplemented by the company policy requiring
Resolution54  dated April 4, 2014, hence, this (a) Serious misconduct or willful the turn-over of excess medical supplies/items
petition.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary disobedience by the employee of the for proper handling65 and providing a
lawful orders of his employer or his restriction on taking and bringing such items
The Issue Before the Court representative in connection with his out of the SLMC premises without the proper
work;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary authorization or “pass” from the official
The core issue to be resolved is whether or not concerned,66 which Sanchez was equally aware
Sanchez was illegally dismissed by x x x xcralawlawlibrary thereof.67 Nevertheless, Sanchez failed to turn-
SLMC.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary over the questioned items and, instead,
“hoarded” them, as purportedly practiced by
Note that for an employee to be validly
The Court’s Ruling the other staff members in the Pediatric Unit.
dismissed on this ground, the employer’s
As it is clear that the company policies subject
orders, regulations, or instructions must be:
The petition is meritorious. of this case are reasonable and lawful,
(1) reasonable and lawful, (2) sufficiently
sufficiently known to the employee, and
known to the employee, and (3) in
The right of an employer to regulate all aspects evidently connected with the latter’s work, the
connection with the duties which the
of employment, aptly called “management Court concludes that SLMC dismissed Sanchez
employee has been engaged to
prerogative,” gives employers the freedom to for a just cause.
discharge.”59cralawred
regulate, according to their discretion and best
judgment, all aspects of employment, including On a related point, the Court observes that
Tested against the foregoing, the Court finds
work assignment, working there lies no competent basis to support the
that Sanchez was validly dismissed by SLMC
methods, processes to be followed, common observation of the NLRC and the CA
for her willful disregard and disobedience of
working regulations, transfer of employees, that the retention of excess medical supplies
Section 1, Rule I of the SLMC Code of
work supervision, lay-off of workers and the was a tolerated practice among the nurses at
Discipline, which reasonably punishes acts of
discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.55 In the Pediatric Unit. While there were previous
dishonesty, i.e., “theft, pilferage of hospital or
this light, courts often decline to interfere in incidents of “hoarding,” it appears that such
co-employee property, x x x or its attempt in
legitimate business decisions of employers.  In acts were – in similar fashion – furtively made
any form or manner from the hospital, co-
fact, labor laws discourage interference in and the items secretly kept, as any excess
employees, doctors, visitors, [and] customers
employers’ judgment concerning the conduct items found in the concerned nurse’s
possession would have to be Resolution dated April 4, 2014 of the Court of
confiscated.68 Hence, the fact that no one was Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 129108
caught and/or sanctioned for transgressing the are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Labor
prohibition therefor does not mean that the so- Arbiter’s Decision dated May 27, 2012 in NLRC
called “hoarding” practice was tolerated by Case No. NCR 07-11042-11 finding respondent
SLMC. Besides, whatever maybe the Maria Theresa V. Sanchez to have been validly
justification behind the violation of the dismissed by petitioner St. Luke’s Medical
company rules regarding excess medical Center, Inc. is hereby REINSTATED.
supplies is immaterial since it has been
established that an infraction was deliberately SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
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.70cralawred

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