G.R. No. 242286 . January 16, 2023.
Globe Telecom, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Kay Abastillas Ebitner, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Globe Telecom, Inc. is a corporation engaged in providing telecommunication services. Respondent Kay Abastillas Ebitner was an employee of Globe, hired in June 2005 and eventually promoted to Retail Shop Specialist. On March 16, 2015, Globe served respondent a Notice to Explain, directing her to explain why she facilitated a credit adjustment of Php998.99 on her father’s mobile account using her own userID without proper notation, allegedly violating the Code of Conduct on Non-Observance of SOP, Fraud against the Company, and Serious Misconduct. Respondent was placed under preventive suspension. In her written explanation, respondent admitted facilitating the adjustment but could not recall the circumstances, claiming she would have received a notification if it were invalid and offering reimbursement. During the administrative hearing, she explained the account user was her mother, who complained of dropped calls, and the adjustment was a goodwill gesture, insisting she made a proper notation. On April 30, 2015, Globe served a Notice of Decision, finding respondent failed to follow procedures and that no supporting notation was retrieved, dismissing her for fraud and serious misconduct. Respondent filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled for respondent, ordering reinstatement but forfeiting backwages as an equitable penalty, without categorically declaring illegal dismissal. Both parties appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC initially found illegal dismissal and granted full backwages but denied separation pay and attorney’s fees. Upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself, declaring no illegal dismissal and deleting monetary awards. Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. The CA modified the NLRC resolution, affirming just cause for dismissal but finding the penalty too harsh given respondent’s 10 years of unblemished service, awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and ordering reimbursement of the adjusted amount. Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Is petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal?
2. Is respondent entitled to separation pay?

RULING

1. Yes, petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal. The Supreme Court held that petitioner failed to fully establish the grounds of serious misconduct and fraud. For serious misconduct, the elements are: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties showing unfitness to continue working; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. Fraud or dishonesty involves a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity. The Court found petitioner failed to prove these grounds. Respondent admitted the act but explained it was a goodwill adjustment for her mother’s service complaints, and petitioner did not substantiate that the act was done with wrongful intent or constituted fraud. The penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the infraction, considering respondent’s length of service and unblemished record.
2. Yes, respondent is entitled to full backwages and separation pay. Normally, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to full backwages and reinstatement. However, due to strained relations, reinstatement is no longer feasible, making separation pay in lieu appropriate. Backwages are awarded on equitable grounds for earnings lost due to illegal dismissal.
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision with MODIFICATIONS: (1) Petitioner is ordered to PAY respondent separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, counted from commencement of employment up to the finality of the Decision; (2) Petitioner is ordered to PAY respondent full backwages from the time of dismissal up to the finality of the Decision; and (3) The portion requiring reimbursement to petitioner is DELETED.