Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AZCUNA, J.:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 1 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
605
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 2 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
606
on the new law on expanded value added tax (E-VAT). Thus, she
attended an E-VAT seminar at the expense of the respondent company.
Until the law was implemented on January 1, 1996, complainant failed
to submit her report. According to the respondents, since the first
quarter report was due for submission on April 20, 1996, the complainant
was reminded about her long delayed E-VAT [study].
Then, on February 9, 1996, a new Internal Auditor in the person of
Chelita B. Icaro was hired. In a summary of audit findings (Exhs. 6, 6-
1 up to 6-8) submitted by Ms. Icaro, she noted the following irregular
accounting practices and control systems and procedures, to wit: that no
subsidiary ledger cards were maintained for accounts payable; that
amounts in words were not indicated on the check voucher; that the
preparation and submission of cash position report were delayed for
almost two (2) days; that reconciliation of cash position report against
cash balances in the bank is not being done; that deposits of checks,
collection were late for clearing by two (2) days; that cash collections
were used in payment of expenses or accounts payable; that there was
failure to monitor Experience Refund from the insurance company, and
the last refund received by the company was on February 26, 1996 which
pertains to 1993, 1994 and 1995; that there is no account title CASH ON
HAND in the Master Chart of Account; that Cash on Hand as of
December 31, 1995 was erroneously recorded as deposits in transit; that
OTHER INCOME account was used as dumping account of all the
reconciling amount in the Bank Reconciliation; that accounting entries
made in the journal vouchers were not properly documented and not
signed by the responsible staff; and that Perpetual Care Fund per audit
shows a big difference as against per books of December 31, 1995.
According to the respondents, when the complainants attention was
called regarding the audit finding, instead of cooperating, complainant
allegedly questioned Ms. Icaros authority as Internal Auditor, and it was
only upon the alleged intervention of the individual respondent that
complainant began to implement the audit recommendation.
On April 17, 1996, a memorandum (Exh. 9 and Exh. C) was issued
by the individual respondent placing com-
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 3 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
607
608
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 4 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
1. Separation pay:
Jan. 20, 1994May 22, 1996
P18,000.00 x 3 yrs. P 54,000.00
2. One year backwages
Basic: P18,000.00 x 12 mos. 216,000.00
609
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 5 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
II
_______________
610
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 6 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
_______________
611
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 7 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
612
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 8 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
613
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 9 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
_______________
614
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 10 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
_______________
7 Rollo, p. 34.
615
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 11 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
The NLRC has declared that the grounds relied upon by the Labor
Arbiter are insufficient grounds for dismissal.
Again, the NLRC was correct in saying that the failure to come
out with such study is not enough basis for respondents herein to
lose trust and confidence in petitioner because:
a) Her failure to come out with the E-VAT study is not serious
616
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 12 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
The Labor Arbiters Decision (Annex G) never cited proof that the
petitioners failure to come out with the E-VAT study had adverse
consequences on respondents because the latter did not really suffer
any damage!
It is worth stressing that Petitioner was tasked to make an E-
VAT study in late 1995, the year the E-VAT was to be implemented
for the first time. At that time, the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) ha[d] yet to come out with the implementing rules of the E-
VAT law. If the implementing agency of the E-VAT is still at a loss
as to how to enforce the E-VAT, how could Petitioner be expected to
come out with an E-VAT study?
Without the E-VAT implementing rules in place, Petitioner
cannot be expected to come out with a decent E-VAT study.
Under such a context, a failure to come out with an E-VAT study
can never amount to breach of trust or loss of confidence. IT IS
NOT A MISCONDUCT.
...
Petitioner was being faulted for the mere act of charging
overtime pay.
In the first place, there is evidence that petitioner did not
charge overtime pay.
The NLRC found out that managerial employees of respondent
corporation were entitled to meal allowances when rendering
overtime work, and that for accounting purposes, the meal
allowance of managerial employees are lumped under overtime
pay. (page 8, NLRC Decision, Annex F)
NOT ONE OF THE 3 GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL AMOUNT
TO MISCONDUCT. EVEN AGGREGATELY THE 3 GROUNDS DO
NOT AMOUNT TO MISCONDUCT!
617
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 13 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 466 2/7/15, 09:27
o0o
_______________
618
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b61a544167359c4b4000a0082004500cc/p/AKY419/?username=Guest Page 14 of 14