SECONDDIVISION

ALDEGUER&CO.,
INC./LOALDEBOUTIQUE,
Petitioner,

versus

HONEYLINETOMBOC,
Respondent.

G.R.No.147633

Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,Chairperson,
CARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,JR.,and
BRION,JJ.

Promulgated:
July28,2008

xx

DECISION

CARPIOMORALES,J.:

In 1993, Aldeguer and Co., Inc./Loalde Boutique (petitioner), a corporation

engaged in the retail and wholesale of Loalde brand products, hired Honeyline Tomboc
(respondent).

Petitioner promoted respondent in 1996 as OfficerinCharge (OIC) of its Loalde

AyalaBoutique(LoaldeAyala)intheAyalaCenter,CebuCity.AsOIC,respondenthad
thefollowingresponsibilities:
1.Monitorsdailytheinventorystatusofthestocksperproductlineandper
productclass

2.Coordinatewiththeareamanagerwiththefollowingmatters

a.stockrequirement
b.maintenanceoftheboutique
c.newdirectivesofthemallmanagement
d.customersproblems
e.otherboutiqueproblems

3.Supervisesthesalesstaffassignedintherespectiveboutiques
4.Implementsthecompanyrulesandregulations
5.ChecksthePRanddepositslipspreparedbythecashieragainstthesales
tallyreport
6. Asperinternalcontrol,theOICisnotallowedtohandlecashiering
except [in] emergency cases which must have prior approval by the
management.Keyholdingofthecashdraweristheresponsibilityofthe
cashier.
7.Mustatalltimessubmitawrittenmemoofanyirregularincidentthat
mayoccurinsidetheboutiqueoriftheresanydeviation[from]company
[1]
policyduetocircumstances.

After conducting an audit of sales in Loalde Ayala, petitioner concluded that

[2]
whichisajustcauseforterminationunderArt.

respondentmisappropriatedP28,137.70

[3]
and accordingly notified her on May 24, 1997 of the

282 of the Labor Code,

terminationofherserviceseffectiveJune24,1997.Petitioneralsonotifiedherasfollows:

Aside from these undeposited cash collections, there are reports submitted by
three(3)cashierswhowereassignedintheLoaldeBoutiquethatyou,beingtheOICin
theboutiquemeddles[sic][with]thecashfordeposit,anddelaying[sic]suchformore
thanthree(3)days.Thishaspromptedthemanagementtobelievethatyouwerereally
[4]
usingthemoney. (Underscoringsupplied)

[5]
Respondent thereupon filed on June 25, 1997 a Complaint before the National
LaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)againstpetitionerforillegaldismissal,illegalsalary
deductions,underpaymentofwages,nonpaymentof13thmonthpay,anddamages.

[6]
InherPositionPaper, respondentgavethefollowingversion:

After being cleared of her accountabilities on May 19, 1997 by Nenita Pamisa
(Nenita),theAccountingManagerofpetitioner,shewentonleavethefollowingday,her
applicationforthepurposehavingbeenearlierapproved.Onherreportbackforwork,she
received a memorandum

[7]
dated May 24, 1997 informing her that effective May 25,

1997, she was no longer allowed to enter the premises of Loalde Ayala and that she
should instead report to petitioners Head Office at Mandaue City. Complying, she
reported to the Head Office where she was assigned to fold and pile dresses in the
stockroom.

In the same Position Paper, respondent posited that she was terminated from
employment because she refused to sign a voucher acknowledging receipt of wage
[8]
differentialswhichshedidnotinfactreceive.

Fromtherecords,itisgatheredthatatthescheduledconciliationconferencebefore
[9]

the Labor Arbiter, petitioner sent no representative.

And it twice failed to send any

representative at the formal hearing of the case. Further, it failed to submit its position
[10]
drawingtheLaborArbitertodeclareonFebruary5,1998 the case submitted

paper,

[11]

fordecisiononthebasisofrespondentspositionpaper.
followingdayoronFebruary6,1998itspositionpaper

Petitionerwaslatertofilethe

[12]
cumaffidavitsofNenita,Kay

Malagar (Kay), Jinky Diongson (Jinky), Joanne Bernaldez, and Jocelyn Martinez
[13]
(Jocelyn),
profferingthefollowingversion:

Itisitspolicytorequireaboutiqueinchargetoconductacashcount...everyend
ofthedayoronthefirsthourofthefollowingdayafterherdayoff[anda]nycollectionfor
[14]
thedaymustbedepositedwithoutfailonthesucceedingbankingday.

On May 19, 1997, Nenita audited the sales of Loalde Ayala and discovered
undepositedcashsalescoveredbysixreceiptsdetailedasfollows:

[15]


OfficialReceiptNumber

6565
6582
6586
6801
6802
6803

Date
April27,1997
May6,1997
May7,1997
May11,1997
May12,1997
May13,1997

Amount
P8,338.00
5,542.50
10,035.40
12,090.00
9,203.40
6,844.30

Whenaskedtoexplain,respondentclaimedthattheamountswerealldepositsintransit,
meaning, the bank had already picked up the amounts but had not yet returned the
[16]
validateddepositslips.

RespondenthavingbeenscheduledtogoonvacationleavestartingMay20,1997,
she was asked to and did report for work on even date during which she conferred with
Nenita and the General Boutique and Sales Manager Cora Anzano. At the conference,
respondent maintained that the questioned amounts were already deposited in the bank.
Petitionersbankpassbookdidnot,however,reflecttheamountscoveredbythelastthree
[17]

aboveindicatedofficialreceipts.

Investigation showed that deposits on May 13, 1997 (comprising the proceeds of
sales for May 9, 11, and 12, 1997 which were Friday, Sunday, and election day,
respectively) and May 14, 1997 were all check deposits, and that there were no cash
deposits even if there were cash sales in the amount of P28,137.70 covering the said
period.
On her scheduled return to work on May 24, 1997, respondent did not show up
hence, the issuance of the notice of her dismissal which was mailed to her on May 29,
[18]

1997.

Respondentcommittedotherirregularitiesinthepast.Thus,onFebruary24,1997,
she incurred a cash shortage of P46,491.35 and when made to account therefor, she

claimedthatarepresentativeofSolidbankMandauepickeduptheamountonthemorning
ofthesameday.Thebankdeniedherclaim,however.

VerificationwiththebankrevealedthatthecashsalesforFebruary15and16,1997
were deposited only on February 25, 1997, and the cash sales for February 2023, 1997
were deposited only on February 26, 1997.

[19]
Respondent later explained that her

deviationfrompetitionerspolicyofrequiringthedepositofthedayssaleonthefollowing
[20]
bankingdayarosefromthesuddenchangeinthepickupsystemofthebank.

On another occasion or on April 24, 1997, respondent instructed an employee,

Jocelyn,toissueanofficialreceiptforP4,307.25antedatedApril3,1997,andanotherfor
P6,030.30 antedated April 18, 1997, to cover amounts which Loalde Ayala received on
thosedatesandwhichwerebeingtracedbytheheadoffice.

Still on another occasion, respondent falsified the signature of the bank teller on
depositslipsdatedApril3,1997andApril18,1997.
[21]
By Decision
of March 16, 1998, Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon dismissed
respondentscomplaint.

[22]

TheNLRCupheld
forReconsideration,

theLaborArbitersDecisionanddeniedrespondentsMotion

[23]
[24]
promptinghertofileaPetitionforCertiorari
beforetheCourt

ofAppeals.

[25]

By Decision

of February 27, 2001, the Court of Appeals, concluding that

respondent was illegally dismissed, reversed the NLRC decision and ordered her
reinstatementwithfullpaymentofbackwagesandwithoutlossofseniorityrights.

[26]

In reversing the NLRC decision, the Court of Appeals found the Labor Arbiter to
have committed grave abuse of discretion when it admitted [herein petitioners] Position

Paper even if submitted almost two (2) months late, aggravated by the fact that said
[27]
Position Paper was unverified and no copy thereof furnished [herein respondent]
(Underscoring partly in the original, partly supplied). And it found respondent to have
[28]
It further found that respondent was denied due process as

been illegally dismissed.

shewasnotaffordedachancetorefutethechargeofmisappropriationagainsther.Finally,
itfoundthechargetobeaproductof[respondents]refusal...tosignafictitiousvoucher.
[29]

Hence,thepresentpetition

[30]
faultingtheCourtofAppealstohaveerred:

I.xxxINHOLDINGTHATTHELABORARBITERCOMMITTEDGRAVE
ABUSEOFDISCRETIONWHEN IT ADMITTED HEREIN PETITIONERS
POSITION PAPER ONE DAY AFTER THE CASE WAS DEEMED
SUBMITTEDFORDECISION.

II. xxxINBRUSHINGASIDETHEFINDINGSOFFACTSOFBOTHTHE
NLRCANDTHELABORARBITERWHICHHELDTHETERMINATION
OF RESPONDENT VALID BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON
RECORD.

III. x x x IN ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF RESPONDENT

TOMBOCASSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCEHASESTABLISHEDTHEJUST
CAUSEFORRESPONDENTSDISMISSAL.

IV. xxxIN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH

[31]
PROCEDURALDUEPROCESSINDISMISSINGTHERESPONDENT.
(Underscoringsupplied)

Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
ALaborArbiterismandatedbylawtouseeveryreasonablemeanstoascertainthe
factsofeachcasespeedilyandobjectively,withouttechnicalitiesoflaworprocedure,all
[32]
Failuretosubmitapositionpaperontimeisnota

intheinterestofdueprocess.

[33]
Andlackofverificationofpetitionersposition

groundforstrikingitfromtherecords.

[34]

paperisonlyaformal,notajurisdictional,defect.

Infindingtheadmissionofthebelatedlyfiledpositionpaperofpetitionertohave
beenattendedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,theCourtofAppealsreliedon,inter alia,
[35]
thefollowingpronouncementinMaebov.NationalLaborRelationsCommission:

x x x Firstly, while it is true that the Rules of the NLRC must be liberally
construedandthattheNLRCisnotboundbythetechnicalitiesoflawandprocedure,
the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC itself must not be the first to arbitrarily disregard
specific provisions of the Rules which are precisely intended to assist the parties in
obtaining just, expeditious, and inexpensive settlement of labor disputes. One such
provision is Section 3, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC which
requiresthesubmissionofverifiedpositionpaperswithinfifteendaysfrom the date
ofthelastconference,withproofofservicethereofontheotherparties.Theposition
papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint
excludingthosethatmayhavebeenamicablysettled,andshallbeaccompaniedbyall
supportingdocumentsincludingtheaffidavitsoftheirrespectivewitnesseswhichshall
taketheplaceofthelatterstestimony.Afterthesubmissionthereof,thepartiesshall.
..notbeallowedtoallegefacts,orpresentevidencetoprovefacts,notreferredto
andanycauseorcausesofactionnotincludedin the complaint or positionpapers,
[36]
affidavits,andotherdocuments.
(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

InfindingMaebotohavebeendenieddueprocess,thisCourtheld:

[T]heLaborArbitergravelyabusedhisdiscretionindisregardingtherulegoverningposition
papersbyadmittingtheSupplemental Position Paper and Memorandum, which was
not even accompanied by proof of service to the petitioner or his counsel, and by
taking into consideration, as basis for his decision, the alleged facts adduced
[37]
therein and the documents attached thereto.
(Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

AspartlyreflectedintheabovequotedportionsofthedecisioninMaebo,theCourt
noted that the labor arbiter principally based its decision on the facts alleged in, and
documentsattachedtothethereinrespondentemployersSupplementalPositionPaperand
Memorandum, no copy of which was even furnished the petitioneremployee Maebo to

thusdenyhimdueprocess.

In the case at bar, petitioner submitted its Position Paper on February 6, 1998 or a day
after the labor arbiter considered the case submitted for decision. Unlike Maebo, herein
[38]
respondent was furnished a copy of petitioners Position Paper on February 6, 1998.
Between February 6, 1998 and March 16, 1998 when the labor arbiter promulgated its
decision,respondentdoesnotevenappeartohaverebuttedpetitionersPositionPaper.
Fromtherecitalofthefactsofthecaseatbarthen,respondentwasnotdeprivedof
dueprocess.

ON THE MERITS, petitioner has shown just cause for the termination of
respondents employment under Art. 282 of the Labor Code on the ground of fraud or
willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
[39]
authorizedrepresentative.

Nenitas affidavit and audit report are corroborated by petitioners Solidbank

passbookshowingthattheP12,090.00cashsalesforMay11,1997,P9,203.40cashsales
[40]
forMay12,1997,andP6,844.30cashsalesforMay13,1997alldulyreceipted
were
[41]

notdepositedinpetitionersaccountwithSolidbank.

The claim of Jinky, a cashier, in her affidavit that it was respondent who turned
overthedepositstothebankrepresentativeonMay13,1997 was corroborated by Kay,
thebranchheadoftheSolidbankGorordoBranchwhopersonallypickedupthedeposits
from Loalde Ayala on May 13 and 14, 1997. Petitioner in fact presented deposit slips
showingthat,contrarytoitspolicy,cashsalesforthedaywereonseveraloccasionsnot
depositedonthenextbankingday.

[42]

Respondents contention that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ignored the
Memorandum issued by petitioner on February 29, 1997 indicating her duties and
responsibilities which do not include handling cash collection of sales and making

[43]

depositswiththebank

doesnotlie.Ithasbeenestablishedthatwhilea

boutiqueincharge is ordinarily not allowed to handle cashiering, she may do so,

[44]
Atanyrate,Jinkyandsomeoftheaffiantsstatedintheir

however,iftheneedarises.

affidavitsthatrespondentinterferedwithcashieringtasks,inviolationofcompanypolicy.

Onrespondentsclaimthatpetitionerframedherupinretaliationforherrefusalto
sign a voucher showing receipt of payment of wage differentials which she never
[45]
thesamefails.ThecopyofthevoucherdatedApril1996whichrespondent

received,

presentedshowsthatshedid,infact,signit.

[46]

IN FINE, the Court finds that respondents employment was terminated for just
cause.It finds, however, that petitioner failed to observe the requirements of procedural
dueprocess.

The rules implementing Book VI of the Labor Code require the following in the
termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Labor
Code:

xxxx
(i) A written notice on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for
termination,andgivingsaidemployeereasonableopportunitytowhichtoexplain
hisside.

(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the
charge,presenthisevidence,orrebuttheevidencepresentedagainsthim.

(iii)Awrittennoticeofterminationservedontheemployee,indicatingthatupondue
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify
histermination.

[47]

xxxx

TheCourtofAppealscorrectlyfound,however,thatxxx[i]nsteadofcomplying
with the two (2) written notice requirement[s], [herein petitioner] in one, single notice,
[48]
ordered[hereinrespondents]dismissalxxx.
Thus,itsMay24,1997memorandumto
respondentreads:

EffectiveMay25,1997,youarenotallowedtoentertheAyalaBoutique.You
havebeengivenaletterofNoticeofTermination,and[it]hasbeenadvisedthatyou
shalldirectlyreporttotheHeadOfficeatM.L.QuezonSt.,Cabancalan,MandaueCity
uponyourreturnafteryourvacationleave.SinceMay25,1997is a Sunday, you are
requiredtoreporttoMandaueOfficeonMonday,May26,1997.

Shouldyouwanttogetyourpersonalbelongingsintheboutique,youhaveto
course everything through the General Boutique & Sales Manager, Ms. Cora G.
Anzano.Thelatterwillhandlethewithdrawalofyourpersonalthingsintheboutique,
and shall turnover everything to you personally. Ms. Anzano will be at the Ayala
Boutiquetomorrowmorning,May25,1997.

[49]
Youhavetotakeheedofthisdirectivetoavoidamoredrasticaction.

[50]
Suchsinglenoticedoesnotcomplywiththerequirementsofthelaw.
Petitioner argues, however, that respondent was terminated not only for the
offensesshecommitted[in]May1997butalsofortheotheroffensesparticularlythose
committed[in]February1997forwhichshewasalreadyrequiredtoexplaininwriting
[51]
(Emphasisintheoriginal,underscoringsupplied).Theargumentfails.For,for

xxx.

thefirstnoticerequirementtobesatisfied,thefollowingconditionsmustbemet:

[T]he first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be
conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to his
dismissal. Such notice must not only contain a plain statement of the charges of

malfeasanceormisfeasancebutmustcategoricallystatetheeffectonhisemployment
ifthechargesareproventobetrue.

This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail [of] all defenses
andexhaustallremediestorefutetheallegationshurledagainsthimforwhatisatstake
is his very life and limb[,] his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just
disregardthenoticeasawarningwithoutanydisastrousconsequencetobeanticipated.
Absentsuchstatement,thefirstnoticefallsshortoftherequirementofdueprocess.xx
[52]
x

Petitioner having failed to comply with the first notice requirement, respondent is,
[53]
followingAgabonv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,
entitled to indemnity in
theformofnominaldamagesintheamountofP30,000.

WHEREFORE, the February 27, 2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals is

REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The January 12, 1999 Decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner,
Aldeguer &. Co., Inc./Loalde Boutique, is ORDERED to pay respondent, Honeyline
Tomboc,nominaldamagesintheamountofP30,000.00.

SOORDERED.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
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 Courts
Division.


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
NLRCrecords,p.22.
[2]
Id.at27.
[3]
Art.282.Terminationbyemployer.Anemployermayterminateanemploymentforanyofthefollowingcauses:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representativeinconnectionwithhiswork
(b)Grossandhabitualneglectbytheemployeeofhisduties
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative
(d)Commissionofacrimeoroffensebytheemployeeagainstthepersonofhisemployeroranyimmediatemember
ofhisfamilyorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentativeand
(e)Othercausesanalogoustotheforegoing.(Underscoringsupplied)
[4]
Id.at27.
[5]
Id.at1.
[6]
Id.at1321.
[7]
Id.at26.
[8]
Id.at1415,18.
[9]
Id.at113.
[10]
Id.at4042.
[11]
Id.at42.
[12]
Id.at4452.
[13]
Id.at6264,7377,8384.
[14]
Id.at301.
[15]
Id.at45,60,62.
[16]
Id.at45
[17]
Id.at46,5960,6768,7072.
[18]
Id.at87.Videid.at29.
[19]
Id.at80.
[20]
Id.at47,8082.
[21]
Id.at118121.
[22]
Id.at161168.
[23]
Id.at169175,195.

[24]
CArollo,pp.226.
[25]
PennedbyCourtofAppealsAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.withtheconcurrenceofAssociateJusticesHilarionL.
AquinoandMercedesGozoDadole.Id.at335345.
[26]
Id.at344.
[27]
Id.at339340.
[28]
Id.at342344.
[29]
Id.at343.
[30]
Rollo,pp.1044.
[31]
Id.at24.
[32]
ABSCBNBroadcastingNetworkv.Nazareno,G.R.No.164156,September26,2006,503SCRA204,222.
[33]
Ibid.
[34]
VideRuralBankofAlaminosEmployeesUnionv.NLRC,376Phil.18,31(1999)(citationomitted).
[35]
G.R.No.107721,January10,1994,229SCRA240.
[36]
Id.at248.
[37]
Id.at249.
[38]
VideNLRCrecords,p.52.
[39]
LABORCODE,Article282(c).
[40]
NLRCrecords,pp.7072.
[41]
Id.at6669.
[42]
Id.at9192.
[43]
Rollo,p.128.Viderecords,p.22.
[44]
Recordsat90.
[45]
Id.at112.
[46]
Id.at25.
[47]
RULESIMPLEMENTINGBOOKVI,RuleI,Section2.
[48]
CArollo,p.343.
[49]
NLRCrecords,p.26.
[50]
VidePerpetualHelpCreditCooperative,Inc.v.Faburada,419Phil.147,157(2001).
[51]
Rollo,p.173.
[52]
Maquilingv.PhilippineTuberculosisSociety,Inc.,G.R.No.143384,February4,2005,450SCRA465,477(citation
omitted).
[53]
G.R.No.158693,November17,2004,442SCRA573.