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. On September 14, 1996, barely four months into his employment, he was summarily dismissed. The company’s human resource manager informed him of the termination, citing a drop in sales, but denied his request for a written notice. De la Cruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding separation pay, backwages, and unpaid wages.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. It found that de la Cruz was validly dismissed for dishonesty constituting loss of trust and confidence, specifically for attempting to obtain reimbursement for his family’s personal plane tickets. The NLRC thus only awarded him unpaid wages and indemnity for procedural due process violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, prompting de la Cruz to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the NLRC’s ruling that the petitioner was validly dismissed for just cause and was thus not entitled to backwages and separation pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court upheld the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA that the petitioner was dismissed for a just cause. The core of the ruling rests on the principle that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. The NLRC found that the petitioner committed an act of dishonesty by submitting for reimbursement the plane tickets of his wife and child, which constituted willful breach of the trust reposed in him as a managerial employee. This provided a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code (willful breach of trust).
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument invoking the Serrano doctrine for automatic backwages due to lack of notice. The ruling clarified that while the employer violated procedural due process by not furnishing the required notices, this procedural lapse does not negate the existence of a valid cause for termination. The indemnity awarded by the NLRC was deemed sufficient sanction for the procedural defect. Consequently, with a just cause for dismissal established, the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, or separation pay. The award was correctly limited to unpaid wages and indemnity for the procedural violation.