GR 112630; (October, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112630 September 5, 1997
CORAZON JAMER and CRISTINA AMORTIZADO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE and/or JOHN GO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Corazon Jamer and Cristina Amortizado were employed as Store Cashiers at Isetann Department Store. On July 16, 1990, they discovered a cash shortage of P15,353.78 from the sales of July 15, 1990, and an under-deposit of P450.00 from July 14, 1990. They reported the shortage to management the following day. Together with another cashier, Lutgarda Inducta, they were placed under preventive suspension and required to submit written explanations. After an administrative investigation, the Committee on Discipline found them responsible for the shortages and terminated their employment on August 31, 1990. The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC remanded the case for re-raffle. After a full-blown trial, a second Labor Arbiter again ruled for the petitioners, finding the dismissal illegal. The NLRC, on appeal, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring the dismissal valid. The petitioners then filed this petition, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruling that the dismissal of petitioners Corazon Jamer and Cristina Amortizado was valid.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the NLRC decision. The Court found that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion because its findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The petitioners, as store cashiers, were not the sole persons with access to the cash and the vault; at least six other individuals, including supervisors and utility personnel, had access. The employer failed to prove by substantial evidence that the petitioners were guilty of dishonesty or willful breach of trust. The loss could have been due to the employer’s own negligence in failing to enforce strict security measures over company funds. The dismissal was therefore illegal. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision ordering the payment of backwages and reinstatement of the petitioners.