GR 155150; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155150 August 29, 2006
EMELITA A. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SUERTE STEEL CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Emelita A. Ramirez was employed as a sales clerk by respondent Suerte Steel Corporation. On July 16, 1997, she was directed to explain why she should not face administrative action for allegedly accepting money from a company customer. She was placed under preventive suspension on July 18. After an investigation on August 1, she was terminated on August 6 for dishonesty, specifically for profiting from an unauthorized sale of metal scraps in violation of company policy.
Ramirez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding the dismissal legal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, prompting Ramirez to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Emelita A. Ramirez was illegally dismissed from employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that the dismissal was legal. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and binding. The appellate court had found that Ramirez violated Company Policy No. V on dishonesty by selling scrap metal without the required prior approval from the Operations-in-Charge, Carmela C. Golozino, and profiting from the transaction.
This act constituted serious misconduct, willful disobedience of lawful orders, and a willful breach of trust under Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code, which are just causes for termination. The Court held that as a sales clerk handling company assets and money, Ramirez’s unauthorized and self-serving act fundamentally breached the trust inherent in her position. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in her claim of deprivation of due process, as the records showed she was given notices and an opportunity to be heard during the company investigation. Therefore, her dismissal was valid.