G.R. No. 145417; December 11, 2003
FLORENCIO M. DE LA CRUZ, JR., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4th Division), SHEMBERG MARKETING CORPORATION and ERNESTO U. DACAY, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Florencio M. de la Cruz, Jr. was hired by Shemberg Marketing Corporation as a Senior Sales Manager on May 27, 1996. His duties included supervision of the sales force and discretion in appointing sales representatives. On September 14, 1996, barely four months into his employment, he was summoned and informed of the management’s decision to terminate his services due to a drop in company sales. His requests for a written notice and a meeting with the vice president were denied.
De la Cruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Shemberg contended his dismissal was for just causes: poor performance evidenced by a sales drop, dissatisfaction among subordinates, unauthorized overseas personal calls using a company phone, and an unauthorized attempt to seek reimbursement for his family’s plane tickets. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal, awarding separation pay, backwages, and unpaid wages. The NLRC, on reconsideration, modified this, awarding only unpaid wages and indemnity, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether petitioner was illegally dismissed, entitling him to full backwages and other monetary claims.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the finding that the dismissal was for a just cause, specifically loss of trust and confidence. The legal logic centered on the nature of petitioner’s position and the evidence of dishonesty. As a managerial employee holding a position of trust, his attempt to secure reimbursement for his family’s personal plane tickets constituted fraud and willful breach of trust. This act alone provided a valid ground for termination under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code.
The Court rejected the argument based on the Serrano doctrine (requiring backwages if the two-notice requirement is violated), distinguishing that Serrano involved a dismissal without statutory due process but for a just cause. Here, while procedural due process was lacking, the existence of a just cause for dismissal—dishonesty—was firmly established. Consequently, the sanction for the procedural lapse was the payment of indemnity (₱5,000), not an award of backwages. The factual findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals on the existence of a just cause were deemed final and conclusive, as there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion. The termination, though procedurally flawed, was substantively valid.