G.R. No. 194119. April 13, 2016
SONIA F. MARIANO, PETITIONER, VS. MARTINEZ MEMORIAL COLLEGES, INC., AND/OR FERDINAND A. MARTINEZ/ DR. ELIZABETH M. DEL RIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Sonia F. Mariano was the Assistant Cashier of respondent Martinez Memorial Colleges, Inc. (MMC) since 1976. On March 12, 2008, she went on a one-month authorized leave. Upon her return on April 14, 2008, she received a memorandum dated April 8, 2008 transferring her from the Cashier’s Office to the Office of the Vice-President for Finance (her husband’s office), effective April 15, 2008, as part of MMC’s streamlining. She alleged the memorandum was distributed while she was on leave. Her husband, MMC’s Director for Finance, requested her reinstatement to the Cashier’s Office, which was denied. She then filed an extended leave until April 21, 2008. On April 22, 2008, her application for another leave was denied, with a note citing an “on-going audit.” She was hospitalized from April 22 to 24, 2008.
Meanwhile, an audit review of the Finance Department for 2004 to summer 2008 was conducted, revealing improper handling of cash accounts and the existence of “non-essential accounts” where MMC collections totaling P40,490,619.26 were deposited and diverted from the general fund.
On April 28, 2008, petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. The next day, her husband received a letter dated April 28, 2008 from MMC, requiring petitioner to explain in writing her possible involvement in the fund diversion. Petitioner, along with others, submitted a joint letter-answer dated May 6, 2008, explaining that the non-essential account was sanctioned by the MMC Board. Petitioner did not submit a separate reply.
On May 14, 2008, petitioner received a termination letter dated May 7, 2008, dismissing her for serious/gross dishonesty related to the misappropriation and diversion of funds, aggravated by continuous absence without leave. She amended her complaint to illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) declared the dismissal illegal, awarding backwages and separation pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC, finding sufficient grounds for dismissal based on the audit report showing gross dishonesty.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in ruling that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding petitioner’s dismissal from employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA decision.
1. On the Validity of the Transfer: The Court held that the transfer of petitioner from the Cashier’s Office to the Office of the Vice-President for Finance was a valid exercise of management prerogative. The Court defers to legitimate business decisions of employers, provided they are not implemented in a malicious, harsh, or oppressive manner. The transfer was based on a sound business policy to avoid having husband and wife in the same department within Finance, which could adversely affect the check and balance principle.
2. On the Validity of the Dismissal for Loss of Trust and Confidence: The Court found that the dismissal was for a just cause. As an Assistant Cashier, petitioner held a position of trust. The audit report, which revealed the diversion of substantial company funds into “non-essential accounts,” provided substantial evidence of breach of trust. The report constituted a reasonable ground for MMC to believe that petitioner was involved in the dishonesty. The fact that the diversion was allegedly sanctioned by the Board did not absolve petitioner, as the act of diverting funds from the general fund constituted dishonesty per se.
3. On Due Process: The Court found that MMC substantially complied with the twin notice requirements. The first notice (letter dated April 28, 2008) apprised petitioner of the specific charges against her. Petitioner, together with others, submitted a joint explanation. The second notice (termination letter dated May 7, 2008) informed her of the decision to dismiss her and the reasons thereof. The requirement of a hearing is satisfied by giving the employee an opportunity to respond, which petitioner availed through the joint letter-answer.
The CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s decision, as the NLRC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. The petition was denied for lack of merit.