G.R. No. 144939. March 18, 2005
VOYEUR VISAGE STUDIO, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ANNA MELISSA DEL MUNDO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Voyeur Visage Studio hired respondent Anna Melissa del Mundo on November 15, 1991, on a six-month probationary basis as a Production and Planning Coordinator/Receptionist. On February 28, 1992, a delivery of Kodak papers was received by del Mundo at the studio. A subsequent shortage of two boxes worth ₱6,000 was discovered. Petitioner held del Mundo responsible and instituted weekly salary deductions of ₱250, falsely recording them as a loan repayment. On August 31, 1992, del Mundo received a memorandum dated August 11, 1992, stating she had not passed her probationary period and was terminated effective August 30, 1992.
Del Mundo protested her dismissal, asserting she had already attained regular status, and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and illegal deductions. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, finding the dismissal legal despite recognizing her as a regular employee. The Court of Appeals subsequently reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, prompting the petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Anna Melissa del Mundo was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that del Mundo was illegally dismissed. On the substantive aspect, the petitioner failed to establish a just or authorized cause for termination. The alleged loss of company property, which petitioner cited as gross negligence, was unsubstantiated. The memorandum of termination cited only her failure to meet probationary standards, not the alleged negligence. The Court found the claim of gross negligence to be an afterthought, noting that salary deductions for the loss began even before the supposed explanatory memorandum was issued. This undermined the petitioner’s claim of a valid substantive cause.
Procedurally, the dismissal violated the twin-notice requirement under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The law mandates a first notice apprising the employee of the specific grounds for dismissal and a second notice communicating the decision to dismiss. Petitioner provided only the final termination memorandum. With the dismissal lacking both substantive and procedural validity, it was declared illegal. Consequently, pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code, del Mundo is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to full backwages from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement. The petition was denied.