G.R. No. 117593 July 10, 1998.
BRENT HOSPITAL INC. and MORLITO B. APUZEN, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and TERESITA M. FERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Teresita M. Fernandez was employed by petitioner Zamboanga Brent Hospital (Brent) in 1968 and was later promoted to acting clinic coordinator. In August 1990, due to resignations at Brent’s School of Midwifery (BSM), she was offered and, after assurances, accepted the position of principal with the promise she could return to her former post after a year. In May 1993, after BSM’s Board scrapped the coordinator’s fee for Manila reviews, the reviewees themselves requested Fernandez and an instructor to accompany them to Manila, expressing willingness to voluntarily shoulder a P350.00 fee each. This collection was not communicated to the Board or parents due to lack of time. Petitioner’s Hospital Administrator, Morlito Apuzen, reported that a reviewee confided Fernandez demanded the fee. Upon her return, Fernandez voluntarily presented an expense report to the Board. She and the instructor were terminated for allegedly violating the policy on collecting the coordinator’s fee. Fernandez filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, awarding separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the decision. Petitioners appealed, arguing dismissal was for just cause (loss of trust and confidence), the damages had no basis, and Apuzen should not be held liable.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Fernandez was illegally dismissed.
2. Whether the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were proper.
3. Whether petitioner Morlito B. Apuzen should be held jointly and severally liable.

RULING

1. Yes, the dismissal was illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the NLRC that Fernandez did not violate company policy. The collection of the P350.00 fee was voluntary from the reviewees who requested her services, negating any finding of impropriety or serious misconduct. Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal requires a willful breach based on clearly established facts, which was not present. The Court also rejected the argument that different termination rules apply to managerial employees, stating the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure applies to all employees.
2. No, the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were deleted for want of factual basis. Moral and exemplary damages require a showing of bad faith, fraud, oppression, or acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. The Court found that Fernandez was afforded due process (notice and hearing) and her dismissal was based on the employer’s honest belief, not a wanton or oppressive manner. The award of attorney’s fees also failed as the reason for it was not stated in the text of the decision.
3. No, petitioner Morlito B. Apuzen should not be held jointly and severally liable. A corporation is a juridical entity that acts through its agents; obligations incurred by corporate agents in their official capacity are the direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit and the NLRC resolution was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: deleting the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, and reversing the finding of joint and several liability against Morlito B. Apuzen.