G.R. No. 149416 ; March 14, 2003
Carmelita V. Santos, petitioner, vs. San Miguel Corporation, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Carmelita V. Santos was the Finance Director for the Beer Division of respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC). In September 1989, SMC issued a memorandum explicitly prohibiting the encashment of personal checks at its plants and sales offices. In January 1991, SMC discovered that Santos had encashed three high-value personal checks at various Metro Manila sales offices in December 1990 and January 1991. Two of these checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds, though she later settled them. An audit investigation revealed she had encashed over fifty personal checks from 1989 to 1991.
SMC formed an Investigating Panel and required Santos to explain. She admitted encashing checks but claimed it was an allowed accommodation with prior management clearance. Pending investigation, she was relieved of her duties and reassigned to a non-functioning role. After she initially participated but later refused to attend further hearings, claiming panel bias, the investigation proceeded. The Panel found her actions highly irregular, constituting serious misconduct and breach of trust. SMC subsequently terminated her employment for loss of trust and confidence.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s dismissal from employment was valid, having been for a just cause and with due process.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was valid. On substantive grounds, Santos’s actions constituted willful breach of the trust reposed in her as a Finance Director, a just cause for termination under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code. Her encashment of personal checks, including those that bounced, directly violated a clear company policy she was duty-bound to uphold. As a managerial employee holding a position of utmost confidence, her conduct demonstrated untrustworthiness, justifying loss of confidence. The employer’s right to dismiss for breach of trust is especially broad concerning employees charged with fiduciary responsibilities.
On procedural grounds, Santos was afforded due process. She was notified in writing of the charges, given ample opportunity to explain and defend herself through written memoranda and investigative hearings. Her own refusal to participate in the later stages of the investigation, after initially engaging with it, constituted a waiver of her right to be heard. The twin-notice requirement (notice to explain and notice of termination) was satisfied. Therefore, her dismissal was both for a just and authorized cause and effected in accordance with procedural due process.