G.R. No. 122277 February 24, 1998
National Sugar Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO), petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division) and Susan Pabiona, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner National Sugar Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO) is a domestic corporation engaged in sugar refinery. In January 1989, it launched its Raw and Refined Sugar Exchange Program, allowing clients to withdraw refined sugar by presenting properly endorsed documents chargeable against future raw sugar deliveries. Private respondent Susan Pabiona was appointed as Sugar Accountant-Bookkeeper for this program. Her duties included maintaining transaction records, validating Raw Sugar Quedans (RSQs) by checking signatures, surveyor reports, mathematical accuracy, and computing refined sugar equivalents, and preparing Refined Sugar Delivery Orders (RSDOs) after validation. A 1990 audit uncovered anomalous transactions in Pabiona’s reports: (1) On December 14, 1989, she prepared RSDO No. 0212 for Shantung Commercial without seeing the corresponding RSQs or Delivery Orders (DOs), resulting in an over-withdrawal of refined sugar because the raw sugar DOs were marked for “deteriorated sugar” of lower quality; (2) In October 1989, she issued RSDO No. 0121 to Shantung Commercial based on a Victorias Milling Company RSQ that had problems and was not replaced, causing NASUREFCO to fail to collect the equivalent raw sugar; (3) She falsely reported in February 1990 that Dacongcogon Producers endorsed 18,000 piculs on December 28, 1989, to make it appear the producer endorsed over 200,000 piculs for 1989, qualifying it for a volume incentive payment. After Pabiona’s written explanation was deemed unsatisfactory, NASUREFCO charged her with violations of accounting policies, conducted a formal investigation where she was advised to retain counsel, and subsequently terminated her services for willful violation of company policies, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and willful breach of trust. Pabiona filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal was illegal, finding her neglect was not within her ordinary functions and was not gross and habitual. The NLRC affirmed, finding the infractions were not gross, habitual, deliberate, or for personal gain, but rather due to a lack of due diligence and failure to follow up. NASUREFCO filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision that Susan Pabiona was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the NLRC decision and resolution, and DISMISSED Pabiona’s complaint. The Court held that Pabiona’s dismissal was for a just and valid cause and that procedural due process was observed. The Court found that Pabiona’s infractions were directly within her job description as Sugar Accountant-Bookkeeper, which involved trust and confidence. Her duties of validating documents and issuing RSDOs were crucial, as only through her issuance could clients withdraw refined sugar. The Court ruled that her neglect of duty was both gross and habitual. It was gross because her position involved money matters and required extra vigilance for the company’s financial interest. It was habitual, as shown by three specific instances: issuing an RSDO without examining corresponding documents, leading to an over-withdrawal; issuing an RSDO without a corresponding RSQ, causing a loss of raw sugar; and falsifying records to qualify a client for an incentive. The fact that NASUREFCO did not suffer actual losses due to timely discovery did not excuse her actions, as she was aware they were prejudicial. The breach of trust was willful and related to her functions, constituting a just cause for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Court also found that NASUREFCO complied with procedural due process by charging her, giving her opportunities to explain, and conducting a formal investigation with the opportunity for counsel.