GR 155502; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155502; June 18, 2009
SARABIA OPTICAL and VIVIAN SARABIA-ONG, Petitioners, vs. JEANET B. CAMACHO, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Sarabia Optical, a single proprietorship managed by Vivian Sarabia-Ong, dismissed respondent Jeanet B. Camacho, its branch manager, on March 9, 1995, on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. The dismissal stemmed from allegations that Camacho failed to account for twelve missing Rayban™ eyewear pieces and, more significantly, that she masterminded an anomaly wherein income from the sale of miscellaneous items from September to November 1994 was not reported and was instead divided among branch personnel. Petitioners claimed this scheme was devised to offset salary deductions for the missing eyewear. An investigation was purportedly conducted, and Camacho was asked to explain.
Camacho filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, contending the charges were fabricated. She alleged that Sarabia-Ong had previously asked her to help fabricate a case against three other employees, and when she refused and offered to resign, the case against her was concocted. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Camacho, declaring the dismissal illegal. This decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission and subsequently by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Was Camacho dismissed for a valid cause and with due process?
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that Camacho was illegally dismissed. On the substantive aspect, the Court found petitioners failed to prove by substantial evidence that a valid cause for dismissal existed. The evidence, primarily a Joint Affidavit from other employees, was deemed insufficient. Petitioners did not present crucial documentary evidence such as an audit report, sales invoices, or purchase receipts to substantiate the alleged losses from unremitted sales. Their failure to file a criminal complaint for qualified theft or estafa, despite the serious nature of the accusations, further weakened their position.
On the procedural aspect, the Court ruled petitioners failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement of due process. While a notice of termination was sent, there was no proof that a written notice specifying the charges was furnished to Camacho to give her a meaningful opportunity to respond. The Court emphasized that factual findings of labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals, when unanimous, are binding. Since these bodies uniformly found the dismissal unjustified and procedurally infirm, the Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from their conclusions. Consequently, the award of backwages and separation pay was upheld.