3/8/2017 G.R.No.

154503

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila


THIRDDIVISION


UNIWIDESALESWAREHOUSE G.R.No.154503
CLUBandVIVIANM.APDUHAN,
Petitioners, Present:

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,
versus Chairperson,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CHICONAZARIO,
NACHURA,and
NATIONALLABOR REYES,JJ.
RELATIONSCOMMISSION
andAMALIAP.KAWADA, Promulgated:
Respondents. February29,2008
xx



DECISION



AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

BeforetheCourtisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtfiledby
Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club (Uniwide) and Vivian M. Apduhan (Apduhan) seeking to annul the
[1] [2]
Decision datedNovember23,2001andtheResolution datedJuly23,2002oftheCourtofAppeals
(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.64581.

Thefactsofthecase:

AmaliaP.Kawada(privaterespondent)startedheremploymentwithUniwidesometimein1981asa
saleslady.Overtheyears,privaterespondentworkedherselfwithinUniwidescorporateladderuntilshe
attainedtherankofFullAssistantStoreManagerwithamonthlycompensationofP13,000.00in1995.

As a Full Assistant Store Manager, private respondents primary function was to manage and
overseetheoperationoftheFashionandPersonalCare,GSRToys,andHomeFurnishingDepartments
ofUniwide, to ensure its continuous profitability as well as to see to it that the established company
[3]
policiesandprocedureswereproperlycompliedwithandimplementedinherdepartments.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 1/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

Sometimein1998,Uniwidereceivedreportsfromtheotheremployeesregardingsomeproblems
[4]
inthedepartmentsmanagedbytheprivaterespondent. Thus,onMarch15,1998,Uniwide,through
StoreManagerApduhan,issuedaMemorandumaddressedtotheprivaterespondentsummarizingthe
various reported incidents signifying unsatisfactory performance on the latters part which include the
comminglingofgoodanddamageditems,saleofavoluminousquantityofdamagedtoysandreadyto
wear items at unreasonable prices, and failure to submit inventory reports. Uniwide asked private
[5] [6]
respondentforconcreteplansonhowshecaneffectivelyperformherjob. Inaletter datedMarch
23,1998,privaterespondentansweredalltheallegationscontainedintheMarch15,1998Memorandum.

[7]
Unsatisfied,ApduhansentanotherMemorandum datedMarch30,1998toprivaterespondent
whereApduhanclaimedthattheanswersgivenbytheprivaterespondentinherMarch23,1998letter
[8]
wereallhypotheticalanddidnotanswerdirectlytheallegationsattributedtoher. Apduhanelaborated
theincidentscontainedintheMarch15,1998Memorandum.

[9]
On June 30, 1998, Apduhan sent another Memorandum seeking from the private respondent an
explanationregardingtheincidentsreportedbyUniwideemployeesandsecuritypersonnelforalleged
irregularities committed by the private respondent such as allowing the entry of unauthorized persons
insidearestrictedareaduringnonofficehours,falsificationoforinducinganotheremployeetofalsify
personnelorcompanyrecords,sleepingandallowinganonemployeetosleepinsidetheprivateoffice,
unauthorizedsearchandbringingoutofcompanyrecords,purchaseofdamagedhomefurnishingitems
without the approval from superior, taking advantage of buying damaged items in large quantity,
[10]
alteration of approval slips for the purchase of damaged items and abandonment of work. In a
[11]
letter datedJuly9,1998,privaterespondentansweredtheallegationsmadeagainsther.

OnJuly27,1998,privaterespondentsoughtmedicalhelpfromthecompanyphysician,Dr.MarivelleC.
[12]
Zambrano(Dr.Zambrano),duetocomplaintsofdizziness. Findingprivaterespondenttobesuffering
[13]
fromhypertension,Dr.Zambranoadvisedhertotakefivedayssickleave.

OnJuly30,1998,privaterespondentwasabletoobtainfromDr.Zambranoacertificateoffitness
[14] [15]
towork, whichshepresentedtoApduhanthefollowingday. It turned out that Dr. Zambrano
inadvertentlywroteMenia,thesurnameofthecompanynurse,inthemedicalcertificateinsteadofprivate
[16]
respondents surname. Thereafter, private respondent claims that Apduhan shouted at her and
preventedherfromresumingworkbecauseshewasnotthepersonreferredtointhemedicalcertificate.
[17]
After private respondent left Apduhans office, a certain Evelyn Maigue, Apduhans assistant,
approachedtheprivaterespondenttogetthecertificationsothatitmaybephotocopied.Whensherefused
togivethecertification,privaterespondentclaimsthatApduhanonceagainshoutedatherwhichcaused
herhypertensiontorecurandeventuallycausedhertocollapse.Privaterespondentsheadhittheedgeof
thetablebeforeshefelldownonthegroundforwhichshesufferedcontusionsatthebackofherhead,as

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 2/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

[18]
evidenced by the medical certificate issued by Dr. George K. C. Cheu of the Chinese General
[19]
Hospital&MedicalCenter.

On August 1, 1998, private respondent reported the confrontation between her and Apduhan to the
[20]
Central Police District. Likewise, private respondent was able to obtain from Dr. Zambrano the
[21]
correctedcertification togetherwiththeclarificationthatthenameAmaliaMeniawrittenontheJuly
[22]
30,1998certificationreferredtoAmaliaKawada.
[23]
Thereafter,counselforprivaterespondentsentaletter datedAugust1,1998toApduhanstatingthat
thelattersallegedcontinuedharassmentandvexationagainstprivaterespondentcreatedahostilework
environmentwhichhadbecomelifethreatening,andthattheyhadnoalternativebuttobringthematterto
[24]
theproperforum.

[25]
OnAugust2,1998,ApduhanissuedaMemorandum, receivedonthesamedaybyEdgardo
Kawada,thehusbandofprivaterespondent,advisingthelatterofahearingscheduledonAugust12,1998
to be held at the Uniwide Office in Quirino Highway, and warning her that failure to appear shall
constituteaswaiverandthecaseshallbesubmittedfordecisionbasedonavailablepapersandevidence.
[26]

OnAugust3,1998,privaterespondentfiledacaseforillegaldismissalbeforetheLaborArbiter
[27]
(LA).
[28]
Counselforprivaterespondentsentaletter datedAugust8,1998toApduhanclaimingthatthe
August 2, 1998 Memorandum was a mere afterthought, in an attempt to justify private respondents
dismissalandthatonAugust3,1998,privaterespondenthadalreadyfiledchargesagainstUniwideand
Apduhan(petitioners).

On August 8, 1998, Apduhan sent a letter addressed to private respondent, which the latter
received on even date, advising private respondent to report for work, as she had been absent since
August1,1998andwarningherthatuponherfailuretodoso,sheshallbeconsideredtohaveabandoned
[29]
herjob.

[30]
OnSeptember1,1998,ApduhanissuedaMemorandum statingthatsinceprivaterespondent
wasunabletoattendthescheduledAugust12,1998hearing,thecasewasevaluatedonthebasisofthe
evidence on record and enumerating the pieces of evidence of the irregularities and violations of
companyrulescommittedbyprivaterespondent,thelattersdefensesandthecorrespondingfindingsby
Uniwide.PortionsoftheMemorandumread:

VIOLATIONS:

1.AllowingentryofUnauthorizedpersoninsideaRestrictedAreaduringnonofficehours(nighttime)

xxxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 3/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

FINDINGS:

Towardsthese evidence, Ms. A. Kawada only raised questions as to the propriety of the entries on the
logbook,buttheoffenseitselfwasnotevendeniedcategoricallybytheemployeeconcerned.Hence,thefact
remainsthattheemployeeconcernedindeedallowedtheentriesofMr.EdKawadaondifferentoccasions.
TheSecuritypersonnelwhenaskedwhytheydidnotreportthoseincidentsimmediately,answered:They
hesitated to report them because they were afraid as the employee concerned is a manager, whom they
thoughtknowsbetterthenthem.

*ViolationNo.9TypeC,CodeofDiscipline*

2.FalsificationoforInducinganotheremployeetofalsifypersonnelorcompanyrecords.

xxxx

FINDINGS:

Inheranswer,Ms.A.Kawadaagainonlyquestionedtheproprietyoftheentriesonthelogbook,butthere
were clear indications that the violation was indeed committed as shown by the abovestated pieces of
evidence.

The testimonies by the witnesses are very explicit of what really transpired, specifically security guard
DennisVenancio, who just performs his duty of reporting any unusual incident that occurred within his
jurisdiction.Thefactthattheyfailedtoreportitatanearliertime,inunderstandable,sincetheywerehesitant,
that the manager might get back at them, or simply because of their respect for Ms. A. Kawada, as a
Manager.

*ViolationNo.8TypeF,CodeofDiscipline*

3.SleepingduringovernightworklastAugust17,1997.

xxxx

FINDINGS:

Based on the records and reports submitted, there is no doubt that the concerned employee
committedsuchanoffense.Thewitnessesstatedtheirtestimoniesonlyinaccordancewithwhattheyhave
seenandwitnessedduringthosestatedperiods.

*ViolationNo.7TypeD,CodeofDiscipline*

4.UnauthorizedSearch,BringingOutandtakingofCompanyRecords,March18,1998andMarch20,
1998.

xxxx




FINDINGS:

Itisestablishedthat15approvalslipsweretakenbytheemployeeconcerned,however,only11
approvalslipsweresurrenderedorreturned.

*ViolationNo.1TypeF,CodeofDiscipline*

5. Purchases of Dented or Substandard items of Home Furnishing without approval from authorized
Supervisor,February3,1998.

xxxx

FINDINGS:

TowardsthisaccusationsubjectemployeecounteredthatsheonlyaskedMs.MelanieLaagwhyshewasnot
abletosignsaidapprovalslipbutnotforthepurposeoflettinghersignit.Bythis,itonlymeansthatindeed
thesaidapprovalslipdoesnotcontainthenecessaryapprovalpriortothepurchase.Thiscouldberelatedto
theotherchargeagainstthesubjectemployeeonunauthorizedsearchandbringingoutofcompanyrecords,
forbasedonthecircumstancestherewassuchasearchconductedtolookforandretrieveapprovalslipsof

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 4/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

subjectemployee,astherearereallyapprovalslipsofsubjectemployeewhichdoesnotbearthenecessary
approval.Thesearchmusthavebeenprobablymadetocoverupand/orsuppresssuchevidenceagainsther.

6.AlteringApprovalslipsdatedJanuary17,1998.
a)#1originalquantity7pieceschangedto2piecesamountwasalteredfromPhp14.00toPhp10.00.
b)#2erasuresonthenumberofquantitywhether15,5or7pieces.

xxxx

FINDINGS:

TowardsthisaccusationMs.A.Kawadasubmittednoplausibleexplanation,indicatingthatsaid
employeeconcernedmighthavereallycommittedtheactscomplainedof.

ViolationofCompanyRulesontheproperprocedureinsellingofdentedmerchandise.

7.MakingReservationsofDentedItemsJanuarytoFebruary1998.

xxxx

FINDINGS:

There was no direct explanation submitted by Ms. A. Kawada on this.Thus, it becomes clear that Ms.
KawadahadviolatedthecompanyruleonNoReservation.

8.Conductunbecomingofamanagerincorneringand/orbringinglargequantityofdamageditems(toys,
furniture,RTW,appliancesandHomeFurnishingitems),causingdemoralizationamongthestorecrew
andtaintingmanagementsimagetoitspersonnel.

xxxx

FINDINGS:

ThereportthatweresubmittedbythewitnessesprovedthatMs.Kawadamadethosepurchasesofdentedor
substandard items that were under her assigned area, without regard for the rest of the employees who
wantedtobuyalso,thus,usingandtakingadvantageofherposition,tothedetrimentoftheotheremployees
andpaintingabadimageofthecompanysmanagers.

9.Abandonmentofworkorabsenceforfive(5)consecutivedayswithoutpriornoticefromanyauthorized
companyofficerorhigherauthority.

FINDINGS:

Despitenoticeforsubjectemployeetoreporttoworkorelsebeconsideredashavingabandonedherjob,it
appearsthatsubjectemployeecontinuouslyfailedtoreportforworkwithoutanyexplanation.
*ViolationNo.2,Sec.A*

Basedonalltheforegoingitseemsclearandconvincing,thatyouhaveindeedcommittedtheviolations
imputedonyou.Theaforementionedviolationspersedeservesterminationasapenalty,nottomentionthat
they also constitute willful breach of the trust reposed on you as a manager.Thus, we have no other
alternative but to terminate your service with the Company, effective September 1, 1998, on the
groundsofviolationsofCompanyRules,AbandonmentofWorkandlossoftrustandconfidence.

Youareherebydirectedtosurrenderallotherdocumentsandpaperspertainingtoyourjob,which
you may have acquired and have come into your possession as a result of your employment with the
company.

[31]
Pleasebeguided.thankyou. (Emphasissupplied)

[32] [33]
OnMarch9,1999theLA dismissedthecomplaintforlackofmerit. Privaterespondentappealed
theLAsdecisiontotheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC).

[34]
In its Decision dated December 27, 2000, the NLRC ruled in favor of private respondent,
reversingtheLA,towit:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 5/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Complainant
is declared constructively dismissed by respondents. Respondents Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club and
VivianApduhanarejointlyandseverallyorderedtopaycomplainantthefollowingsums:

SeparationPay:
November1981July3,1998
P13,000.00x16.8yrs.=P218,400.00

Backwages:
July31,1998uptothepresent

MoralDamages=P100,000.00

ExemplaryDamagesP100,000.00

Attorneysfeescomputedattenpercent(10%)ofthetotalaward.

[35]
SOORDERED.

AccordingtotheNLRC,privaterespondentwassubjectedtoinhumanandantisocialtreatment
oppressive to labor. Private respondent received successive memoranda from Apduhan accusing the
formerofdifferentinfractions,someofwhichoffensescomplainantwasinformedofonlyayearafterthe
allegedcommission.Further,Apduhansillwillandmotivetoedgeprivaterespondentoutofheremploy
wasdisplayedbyApduhansstubbornrefusaltoallowprivaterespondenttocontinueherworkonthe
flimsyexcusethatthemedicalcertificatedidnotbearhercorrectsurname,whileApduhanknewfora
[36]
factthatthesamecouldnothavereferredtoanotherpersonbuttoprivaterespondent.

Also,theNLRCobservedthatprivaterespondentwasnotaffordeddueprocessbypetitionersbecausethe
formerwasnotgivenanopportunitytoafairhearinginthattheinvestigationwasconductedafterprivate
respondenthadbeenconstructivelydismissedandthattherewasnopointforprivaterespondenttostill
attendtheinvestigationsetonAugust12,1998afterherconstructivedismissalonJuly31,1998andafter
shehadalreadyfiledhercomplaint.

[37]
Feelingaggrieved,petitionersappealedtheNLRCDecisiontotheCA.IntheassailedDecision dated
November23,2001,theCAaffirmedintototheNLRCDecision.

[38]
Hence,thepresentpetition.

ThesoleissueraisedbeforetheCourtis:

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
SUSTAINING THE NLRCS FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS
[39]
CONSTRUCTIVELYDISMISSED.
ItisawellsettledrulethatthejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtinpetitionsforreviewoncertiorari
[40]
underRule45oftheRulesofCourtislimitedtoreviewingerrorsoflaw,notoffact. TheCourtisnot
atrieroffacts.Intheexerciseofitspowerofreview,thefindingsoffactoftheCAareconclusiveand
[41]
bindingandconsequently,itisnottheCourtsfunctiontoanalyzeorweighevidencealloveragain.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 6/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

The foregoing rule, however, is not absolute. The Court, in Dusit Hotel Nikko v. National Union of
[42]
WorkersinHotel,RestaurantandAlliedIndustries(NUWHRAIN), heldthatthefactualfindingsof
theNLRCasaffirmedbytheCA,areaccordedhighrespectandfinalityunlessthefactualfindingsand
conclusionsoftheLAclashwiththoseoftheNLRCandtheCAinwhichcasetheCourtwillhaveto
reviewtherecordsandtheargumentsofthepartiestoresolvethefactualissuesandrendersubstantial
[43]
justicetotheparties.
Thepresentcaseiscloudedbyconflictoffactualperceptions.Consequently,theCourtisconstrainedto
reviewthefactualfindingsoftheCAwhichcontravenethefindingsoffactsoftheLA.

TheCourtsRuling

Thepetitionismeritorious.Afterathoroughexaminationoftheconflictingpositionsoftheparties,the
CourtfindstherecordsbereftofevidencetosubstantiatetheconclusionsoftheNLRCandtheCAthat
privaterespondentwasconstructivelydismissedfromemployment.

Case law defines constructive dismissal as a cessation of work because continued employment is
renderedimpossible,unreasonableorunlikelywhenthereisademotioninrankordiminutioninpayor
bothorwhenacleardiscrimination,insensibility,ordisdainbyanemployerbecomesunbearabletothe
[44]
employee.

Thetestofconstructivedismissaliswhetherareasonablepersonintheemployeespositionwould
[45]
have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to
dismissalbutmadetoappearasifitwerenot.Infact,theemployeewhoisconstructivelydismissedmay
beallowedtokeeponcomingtowork.Constructivedismissalisthereforeadismissalindisguise.The
law recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and
[46]
interestsfromthecoerciveactsoftheemployer.

Inthepresentcase,privaterespondentclaimsthatfromthemonthsofFebruarytoJune1998,she
hadbeensubjectedtoconstantharassment,ridiculeandinhumanetreatmentbyApduhan,withthehope
[47]
thatthelattercangettheprivaterespondenttoresign. Theharassmentallegedlycameintheformof
successivememorandawhichprivaterespondentwouldreceivealmosteveryweek,enumeratingalitany
of offenses and maligning her reputation and spreading rumors among the employees that private
[48]
respondentshallbedismissedsoon. ThelaststrawoftheimputedharassmentwastheJuly31,1998
incident wherein private respondents life was put in danger when she lost consciousness due to
[49]
hypertensionasaresultofApduhansallegedhostilityandshouting.

TheCourtfindsthatprivaterespondentsallegationofharassmentisaspeciousstatementwhich
containsnothingbutemptyimputationofafactthatcouldhardlybegivenanyevidentiaryweightbythis
[50]
Court. Private respondents bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the
[51]
evidenceonrecord,cannotbegivencredence.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 7/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

Thesendingofseveralmemorandaaddressedtoamanagerialorsupervisoryemployeeconcerning
variousviolationsofcompanyrulesandregulations,committedondifferentoccasions,arenotunusual.
TheallegedFebruarytoJune1998seriesofmemorandagivenbypetitionerstoprivaterespondentasking
thelattertoexplaintheallegedirregularactsshouldnotbeconstruedasaformofharassmentbutmerely
anexerciseofmanagementsprerogativetodisciplineitsemployees.

The right to impose disciplinary sanctions upon an employee for just and valid cause, as well as the
authoritytodeterminetheexistenceofsaidcauseinaccordancewiththenormsofdueprocess,pertainsin
[52]
thefirstplacetotheemployer. Precisely,petitionersgaveprivaterespondentsuccessivememorandaso
astogivethelatteranopportunitytocontrovertthechargesagainsther.Clearly,thememorandaarenot
formsofharassment,butpetitionerscompliancewiththerequirementsofdueprocess.

TheJuly31,1998confrontationwhereApduhanallegedlyshoutedatprivaterespondentwhichcaused
thelattershypertensiontorecurandeventuallycausedhertocollapsecannotbyitselfsupportafindingof
constructivedismissalbytheNLRCandtheCA.Eveniftrue,theactofApduhaninshoutingatprivate
respondentwasanisolatedoutburstonthepartofApduhanthatdidnotshowacleardiscriminationor
insensibilitythatwouldrendertheworkingconditionofprivaterespondentunbearable.

Moreover,thefindingoftheNLRCthatApduhanknewforafactthatthecertificationpresented
byprivaterespondentreferredtothelatterandnottoanotherpersonisamereconjecture.Thereisno
evidencetosustainthesame.ThisCourthasconsistentlyheldthatlitigationscannotbeproperlyresolved
bysuppositions,deductions,orevenpresumptions,withnobasisinevidence,forthetruthmusthaveto
[53]
bedeterminedbythehardrulesofadmissibilityandproof.

Selfserving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasijudicial
bodies.Wellentrenched is the rule that the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in quasi
judicialbodiesissubstantialevidence.Substantialevidenceissuchamountofrelevantevidencewhicha
reasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion,evenifotherequallyreasonableminds
[54]
mightopineotherwise.

On petitioners claim of abandonment by private respondent, wellsettled is the rule that to constitute
abandonmentofwork,twoelementsmustconcur:(1)theemployeemusthavefailedtoreportforworkor
musthavebeenabsentwithoutvalidorjustifiablereason,and(2)theremusthavebeenaclearintention
onthepartoftheemployeetosevertheemployeremployeerelationshipmanifestedbysomeovertact.
Theemployerhastheburdenofprooftoshowtheemployeesdeliberateandunjustifiedrefusaltoresume
his employment without any intention of returning.Mere absence is not sufficient.There must be an
[55]
unequivocalintentonthepartoftheemployeetodiscontinuehisemployment.

PrivaterespondentsfailuretoreportforworkdespitetheAugust8,1998lettersentbyApduhanto
privaterespondentadvisingthelattertoreportforworkisnotsufficienttoconstituteabandonment.Itisa
settled rule that failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has been served does not
[56]
necessarilyconstituteabandonment.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 8/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

PrivaterespondentmistakenlybelievedthatthesuccessivememorandasenttoherfromMarch1998to
June 1998 constituted discrimination, insensibility or disdain which was tantamount to constructive
dismissal. Thus, private respondent filed a case for constructive dismissal against petitioners and
consequentlystoppedreportingforwork.

[57]
InthecaseofLemerySavings&LoanBankv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission, the
Courtheld:

ItistruethattheConstitutionhasplacedahighregardforthewelfareofthelaborsector.However,social
andcompassionatejusticedoesnotcontemplateasituationwherebythemanagementstandstosufferfor
certainmisconceptionscreatedinthemindofanemployee.xxx

Nevertheless,themistakenbeliefonthepartoftheemployeeshouldnotleadtoadrasticconclusion
thathehaschosentoabandonhiswork.xxxWecannotreadilyinferabandonmentevenif,sometime
duringthependencyofthiscase,herefusedtoheedthewarninggivenhimbypetitionerDimailigwhile
[58]
believingthathewasdismissedthroughnofaultofhis. (Emphasissupplied)

TheCourtfindsthatpetitionerswerenotabletoestablishthatprivaterespondentdeliberatelyrefusedto
continue her employment without justifiable reason. To repeat, the Court will not make a drastic
conclusionthatprivaterespondentchosetoabandonherworkonthebasisofhermistakenbeliefthatshe
hadbeenconstructivelydismissedbyUniwide.

Nonetheless,theCourtagreeswiththefindingsoftheLAthattheterminationofprivaterespondentwas
[59]
groundedontheexistenceofjustcauseunderArticle282(c)oftheLaborCode orwillfulbreachby
[60]
theemployeeofthetrustreposedonhimbyhisemployeroradulyauthorizedrepresentative.

Privaterespondentoccupiesamanagerialposition.Asamanagerialemployee,mereexistenceofa
basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his
[61]
dismissal.

[62]
In Caoile v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court distinguished the treatment of
managerialemployeesfromthatofrankandfilepersonnel,insofarastheapplicationofthelossoftrust
andconfidenceisconcerned.TheCourtheld:

Thus, with respect to rankandfile personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal
requiresproofofinvolvementintheallegedeventsinquestion,andthatmereuncorroboratedassertionsand
[63]
accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. But, as regards a managerial employee, mere
existenceofabasisforbelievingthatsuchemployeehasbreachedthetrustofhisemployerwould
sufficeforhisdismissal.Hence,inthecaseofmanagerialemployees,proofbeyondreasonabledoubtis
notrequired,itbeingsufficientthatthereissomebasisforsuchlossofconfidence,suchaswhenthe
employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the
purportedmisconduct,andthenatureofhisparticipationthereinrendershimunworthyoftrustand
[64]
confidencedemandedbyhisposition. (Emphasissupplied).
Inordertogiveprivaterespondentanopportunitytoexplaintheseveralviolationsofcompany
rulessheallegedlycommitted,privaterespondentwasgivenseveralmemoranda,towhichsheinitially
responded. Also, to give private respondent an opportunity to be heard, defend herself, confront the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 9/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

witnessesagainstheraswellastopresentherownevidence,ApduhanscheduledahearingonAugust12,
1998,noticeofwhichwassentonAugust2,1998anddulyreceivedbyprivaterespondentshusbandon
[65]
thesameday. Thisfactalonewouldhaveindicatedtoprivaterespondentthattherewasnointention
onthepartofpetitionerstoeffectherconstructivedismissal.However,privaterespondentoptedtofilethe
complaintforillegaldismissalthenextdayandnottoattendthescheduledhearingonAugust12,1998.
[66]
Thus,petitionerswerejustifiedtodecidethecaseonthebasisoftherecordsathand.

The irregularities and offenses committed by private respondent, corroborated by the various
piecesofevidencesupportingsuchcharges,i.e.records,reportsandtestimoniesofUniwideemployees,
[67]
inthemindoftheCourt,constitutesubstantialevidencethatprivaterespondentisinfactresponsible
fortheallegedcharges.

[68]
Todisprovethechargesagainsther,privaterespondentpresentedaletter datedJuly29,1998
fromaformerUniwideemployee,LuisaAstrologo(Astrologo),statingthatthelatterwasurgedbyher
manager,acertainRalphGalang,totestifyagainstprivaterespondentforimproperbehaviorconcerning
thedentedproductforwhichprivaterespondentisabusingherpowerofreservingandpickingthebest
[69]
product she can afford to dispatch. The letter, however, does not state that the charges Astrologo
imputedtoprivaterespondentwerefalse.ThelettermerelystatesthatAstrologodoesnotseeanything
[70] [71]
wrongaboutthematter. Moreover,inherMemorandum, filedwiththeCourt,privaterespondent
merelycitedinconsistenciesinthereportsregardingthechargesimputedtoherwithoutdenyingthesaid
allegations.

Itistruethatprivaterespondenthadrisenfromtheranks,frombeingasalesladyin1981toaFull
AssistantStoreManagerin1995.SheworkedforUniwideforalmost17yearswithacleanbillofrecord.
However,thesefactsarenotsufficienttoovercomethefindingsofpetitionersthattheprivaterespondent
isguiltyofthechargesimputedtoher.

Finally,theNLRCandtheCAerredinfindingthatprivaterespondentwasdenieddueprocess.
Privaterespondentclaimsthatshelosttheopportunitytobeheardwhenshewasconstructivelydismissed
[72]
onJuly31,1998, andthatitwasonlyaftershefiledacomplaintforillegaldismissalwiththeNLRC
on August 3, 1998 that petitioners notified the private respondent of the investigation which will be
conducted on August 12, 1998 concerning her alleged offenses. The Memorandum dated August 2,
[73]
1998 completelydemolishessuchclaims.Itshowsonitsfacethatprivaterespondentreceivedthe
Memorandum on August 2, 1998, a day before she filed the complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitionersandthatprivaterespondentwasnotifiedthatthehearingwasscheduledonAugust12,1998
andexplicitlywarnedherthatherfailuretoappearthereatshallmeanawaivertobeheard,andthecase
shallthenbesubmittedfordecisionbasedonavailablepapersandevidence.

Inreality,privaterespondent,asfoundearlierwasnotterminatedonJuly31,1998.Therewasno
constructivedismissal.Again,thesuccessivememorandapresentedbyprivaterespondentandthealleged
July31,1998shoutingincidentarenotsufficienttoestablishherclaimofharassment.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 10/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

However, as to the September 1, 1998 Memorandum where the private complainant was
dismissedforlossoftrustandconfidence,theCourtfindsthenoticeofthescheduledAugust12,1998
hearingsufficientcompliancewiththedueprocessrequirement.

Theessenceofdueprocessissimplyanopportunitytobeheard,orasappliedtoadministrative
[74]
proceedings,afairandreasonableopportunitytoexplainonesside. Itisnotthedenialoftherightto
[75]
beheardbutdenialoftheopportunitytobeheardthatconstitutesviolationofdueprocessoflaw. In
[76]
theinstantcase,privaterespondentwasagainnotifiedoftheAugust12,1998hearingthroughaletter
[77]
datedAugust8,1998whichwasreceivedbyprivaterespondentherself. Clearly,privaterespondent
wasgivenanopportunitytobeheard.However,privaterespondentchosenottoattendthescheduled
hearingbecauseofhermistakenbeliefthatshehadalreadybeenconstructivelydismissed.

[78]
Atthispoint,theCourtagreeswithandadoptsthefindingsoftheLAinhisDecision:
Wecannot,withduerespect,subscribetocomplainants[hereinprivaterespondent]positionforit
simplylacksevidenceandthatallthatthereistoitisseeminglyageneralallegation.Weexaminedtherecord
andaswehavedoneitwefindnoactsorincidentsconstitutingcomplainantsallegedconstructivedismissal.
Onthecontrary,whatisgenerallyexistingthereatisthatcomplainantwasdismissedbytherespondents
[UniwideandApduhan]foranarrayofviolationsconsistingof,butnotlimitedtothefollowing:allowing
entry of unauthorized personnel inside a company restricted area falsification of or inducing another
employeetofalsifypersonnelorcompanyrecordssleepingduringovernightworkunauthorizedsearchand
bringingoutofcompanyrecordsunauthorizedpurchaseofdamageditemsalterationofapprovalslipsfor
thepurchaseofdamageditemsundulyreservingandbuyingofdamageditemsandabandonmentofwork.

In fact, as it even appears the constructive dismissal allegedly committed on complainant
looks simply an excuse to avoid and/or evade the investigation and consequences of the violations
imputedagainstherwhileemployedand/oractingasrespondentsassistantstoremanager.Asshown
on an earlier setting on the investigation of her case, she filed a sick leave, thus causing the
hearing/investigation to be rescheduled. Again, upon rescheduling, complainant despite notice failed to
appear or did not appear, this time coming up with the excuse that she had been already constructively
dismissed.Thisevasiveattitudeofhermorethanenoughsupportstheimpressionthatcomplainantcouldbe
guiltyorisguiltyofthechargesagainstherandbelievesthatshemightnotbeabletodefendherself.Thisis
evenbolsteredbytheinformationthatcomplainantcalledonseveralofthewitnessesagainsther,simplyto
influencethemandtheirtestimonies.xxxThus,viewedtheforegoingfinding,weopinedthatcomplainant
[79]
couldnothavebeenconstructivelydismissed. (Emphasissupplied)

ItshouldberememberedthatthePhilippineConstitution,whileinexorablycommittedtowardsthe
protectionoftheworkingclassfromexploitationandunfairtreatment,neverthelessmandatesthepolicy
ofsocialjusticesoastostrikeabalancebetweenanavowedpredilectionforlabor,ontheonehand,and
themaintenanceoflegalrightsofcapital,theproverbialhenthatlaysthegoldenegg,ontheother.Indeed,
we should not be unmindful of the legal norm that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be
[80]
dispensedwithinlightofestablishedfacts,theapplicablelaw,andexistingjurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 23, 2001 and
ResolutiondatedJuly23,2002 of the Court ofAppeals in CAG.R. SP No. 64581 together with the
DecisiondatedDecember27,2000oftheNationalLaborRelationsCommissionareREVERSEDand
SETASIDE.ThecomplaintofprivaterespondentAmaliaP.KawadaisDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 11/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice



ATTESTATION


IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision


CERTIFICATION


PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,
itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyJusticeEugenioS.LabitoriaandconcurredinbyJusticesTeodoroP.ReginoandRebeccaDeGuiaSalvadorrollo,pp.
3946.
[2]
Id.at48.
[3]
Rollo,p.15.
[4]
Id.at16.
[5]
Id.at5960.
[6]
Id.at6164.
[7]
Id.at6571.
[8]
Rollo.
[9]
Id.at72.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 12/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.at7477.
[12]
Id.at40.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id.at106
[15]
Id.at41.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Rollo.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Id.at446.
[20]
Id.at107.
[21]
Id.at449.
[22]
Id.
[23]
Id.at109110.
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id.at111.
[26]
Rollo.
[27]
Id.at42.
[28]
Id.at112113.
[29]
Id.at78.
[30]
Id.at80.
[31]
Rollo,pp.8087.
[32]
LaborArbiterDonatoG.Quinto,Jr.
[33]
Rollo,pp.143179.
[34]
Id.at491504.
[35]
Rollo,p.503.
[36]
Id.at221232.
[37]
Rollo,pp.3946.
[38]
Id.at12
[39]
Id.at20.
[40]
Lorenzo v. People, G.R. No. 152335, December 19, 2005, 478 SCRA 462, 469 IlaoQuianay v. Mapile, G.R. No. 154087,
October25,2005,474SCRA246,253.
[41]
Gov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.158922,May28,2004,430SCRA358,364,citingGabrielv.SpousesMabanta,447Phil.717,
725(2003).
[42]
DusitHotelNikkov.NationalUnionofWorkersinHotel,RestaurantandAlliedIndustries(NUWHRAIN)DusitHotelNikko
Chapter,G.R.No.160391,August9,2005,466SCRA374.
[43]
Id.at387388.
[44]
ChiangKaiShekCollegev.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.152988,August24,2004,437SCRA171,177GlobeTelecom,Inc.v.
FlorendoFlores,438Phil.757,766(2002)BlueDairyCorporationv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,373 Phil.
179,186(1999).
[45]
Aguilarv.BurgerMachineHoldingsCorporation,G.R.No.172062,October30,2006,506SCRA266,273.
[46]
Id.
[47]
Rollo,p.672.
[48]
Id.
[49]
Id.at675.
[50]
Portuguezv.GSISFamilyBank(ComsavingsBank),G.R.No.169570,March2,2007,517SCRA309,323.
[51]
Gov.CourtofAppeals,supranote41,at366.
[52]
FosterParentsPlanInternational/Bicolv.Demetriou,G.R.No.L74077,July7,1986,142SCRA505,509.
[53]
Lagonv.HoovenComalcoIndustries,Inc.,402Phil.404,421422(2001).
[54]
Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank, supra note 50, at 323, citing Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166,
December16,2005,478SCRA210,230.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 13/14
3/8/2017 G.R.No.154503

[55]
NorthwestTourismCorp.v.CourtofAppeals,FormerSpecialThirdDivision,G.R.No.150591,June27,2005,461SCRA298,
309310.
[56]
PhilippineIndustrialSecurityAgencyCorporationv.Dapiton,377Phil.951,960(1999).
[57]
G.R.No.96439,January27,1992,205SCRA492.
[58]
Id.at499.
[59]
Article282oftheLaborCodeprovides:
Art.292.Terminationbyemployer.Anemployermayterminateanemploymentforanyofthefollowingcauses:
xxxx
(c)Fraudorwillfulbreachbytheemployeeofthetrustreposedinhimbyhisemployerordulyauthorizedrepresentative.xxx
[60]
Rollo,p.172.
[61]
Caoilev.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,359Phil.399,405(1998).
[62]
Id.
[63]
Id.at406, citing Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation v. Nuwhrain (Ramada Chapter), G.R. No. L57268, March 25,
1988,159SCRA212.
[64]
Id.at406,citingSajonasv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.49286,March15,1990,183SCRA182Reyesv.
MinisterofLabor,G.R.No.48705,February9,1989,170SCRA134.
[65]
Rollo,p.79.
[66]
Id.at80.
[67]
Id.at329356.
[68]
Rollo,p.505.
[69]
Id.
[70]
Id.
[71]
Id.at670.
[72]
Id.at697.
[73]
Id.at111.
[74]
Eastern Overseas Employment Center, Inc. v. Bea, G.R. No. 143023, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 384, 392, citing NFD
InternationalManningAgentsv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,348Phil.264(1998).
[75]
Id.
[76]
Rollo,p.78.
[77]
Id.
[78]
Id.at143179.
[79]
Rollo,pp.150151.
[80]
Portuguezv.GSISFamilyBank(ComsavingsBank)supranote50,at326327,citingCebuMetalCorporationv.Salilling,G.R.
No.154463,September5,2006,501SCRA61.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/154503.htm 14/14