An alleged Certified Public Accountant (CPA) has been working as a
chief accountant in a credit corporation for three years. It was only
after this time that the credit corporation found out that she was not a
CPA and misrepresented herself as one in her application and personal
data sheet. She was also supposedly helping pirate employees of the
credit corporation for a rival corporation. After confronting her, the
credit corporation deemed it best to let her go that same day. When she
tried to collect her belongings the very next day, she was no longer
allowed to enter the premises.
The accountant filed a case for
illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
where the Labor Arbiter ruled that she had been illegally dismissed and
that her dismissal was done in violation of due process requirements. On
appeal, the NLRC found that there was no illegal dismissal as the
parties entered into a compromise agreement where the accountant would
voluntarily resign in exchange for separation benefits. This decision
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court (SC)
overturned the CA, holding that there was nothing in the records to
prove that the accountant had voluntarily resigned from her position in
the company. It further ruled that there was no illegal dismissal
despite the company’s failure to follow the two-notice rule.
Article
282 of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an
employment for fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.
The
Court made a distinction between managerial and rank and file employees
when it comes to the termination of employees based on breach of trust.
For managerial employees, the mere existence that there is basis to
believe that such employee has breached the trust of the employer would
suffice his dismissal. For rank and file employees, proof of involvement
in the alleged events in question is necessary. The accountant, being a
managerial employee, was validly terminated for loss of confidence -
In securing this position, she fraudaulently misrepresented her
personal qualifications by stating in her Personal Information Sheet
that she was a CPA… [t]his deceitful action alone was sufficient basis
for respondent’s loss of confidence in her as a managerial employee.
The SC, however, explained that in labor cases, the existence of just cause is not enough to comply with procedural due process.
In
the case of termination by the employer, it is not enough that there
exists a just cause therefor, as procedural due process dictates
compliance with the two-notice rule in effecting a dismissal: (a) the
employer must inform the employee of the specific acts or omissions for
which his dismissal is sought, and (b) the employer must inform him of
the decision to terminate employment after affording the latter the
opportunity to be heard.
Despite the existence of a just cause for
termination, the accountant was dismissed from service in violation of
procedural due process, because she did not receive any notice of her
termination and was fired on the spot. Nevertheless, the failure to
comply with procedural due process does not render a dismissal for valid
cause illegal. Instead, the employees remedy is to be granted damages.
It
is evident that although there was a just cause in terminating the
services of Mendoza, respondents were amiss in complying with the
two-notice requirement. Following prevailing jurisprudence on the
matter, if the dismissal is based on just cause, then the non-compliance
with non-procedural due process should not render the termination from
employement illegal or ineffectual. Instead, the employer must indemnify
the employee in the form of nominal damages (Mendoza v. HMS Credit
Corporation, G.R. No. 187232, 17 April 2013, C.J. Sereno).
source: Manila Times' Column by Benchpress
No comments:
Post a Comment