GR 167118; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167118 ; June 15, 2006
MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC. and/or ENRIQUE B. LAGDAMEO, Petitioners, vs. DELIA V. PANADO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Delia Panado was a Park Information Officer for petitioner Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. (MMPCI). Her duties included arranging rentals and handling collections. An internal audit revealed unremitted payments for tent rentals she arranged for three clients in early 2000, totaling P2,160.00. Petitioners issued a memorandum requiring her to explain the discrepancy. In her written explanation, Panado denied receiving the payments. For one transaction, she claimed her supervisor promised free use. For the others, she stated the families merely promised to pay but failed to do so, admitting fault only for not following up.
Subsequently, a client, Erlinda Obice, executed a statement certifying she personally paid the rental, which was received by a certain Aguilar Santiago. Santiago also executed a sworn statement confirming receipt and turnover of the cash to another MMPCI employee, Sonny Brequillo. Petitioners found Panado’s explanations ambiguous and insufficient. They terminated her employment for gross and habitual neglect of duties and willful refusal to follow specific instructions on rental procedures.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners validly dismissed respondent Delia Panado for just cause.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and ruled the dismissal was illegal. For termination to be valid, the employer must prove by substantial evidence that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause and that due process was observed. The charge was gross and habitual neglect of duties. The legal logic requires that negligence must be both gross and habitual; gross implies a want of care, while habitual connotes repeated failure. The Court found the evidence did not establish this standard.
The alleged negligence stemmed from three isolated incidents within a six-month period involving a relatively small sum. The Court held this did not constitute habitual neglect. Furthermore, the sworn statements of the client and the witness indicated the payment was received by another person (Santiago) and turned over to another employee (Brequillo), creating reasonable doubt that Panado personally misappropriated the funds. Her admission of failure to follow up, while a lapse, did not rise to the level of gross negligence warranting dismissal. The penalty of termination was too severe for the infraction. Consequently, she was ordered reinstated with full backwages.