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 and, after an investigation, was terminated on August 6, 1997, for dishonesty. The company charged her with violating its rules by profiting from an unauthorized sale of metal scraps to a customer.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Ramirez, ordering her reinstatement with backwages, finding her dismissal illegal. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, upholding the dismissal. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, prompting Ramirez to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
The sole issue for resolution is 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 applied the doctrine that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and binding. The appellate court had found that Ramirez, whose duties included selling and handling company funds, sold metal scraps without the required prior approval from the company’s Operations-in-Charge, thereby violating a specific company policy on dishonesty.
The Court held that this act constituted serious misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful company orders under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. Furthermore, as a sales clerk entrusted with handling transactions and money, her unauthorized act constituted a willful breach of the trust reposed in her by her employer under Article 282(c). These are valid grounds for termination. The Court also found no merit in Ramirez’s claim of deprivation of due process, as the records showed she was given notice, an opportunity to explain, and underwent a proper investigation. Therefore, her dismissal was for a just cause and effected with due process.