G.R. No. 198093 , July 28, 2014
FLP Enterprises Inc. – Francesco Shoes/Emilio Francisco B. Pajaro, Petitioners, vs. Ma. Joeralyn D. Dela Cruz and Vilma Malunes, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner FLP Enterprises Inc. hired respondents Ma. Joeralyn D. Dela Cruz and Vilma Malunes as sales ladies at its Alabang Town Center store. On March 10, 2008, sales proceeds amounting to ₱26,372.75 for March 7-9, 2008, were discovered missing. The investigation pointed to an “inside job” as there was no forced entry. FLPE contended that respondents violated a company policy, allegedly established via a Memorandum dated October 23, 2003, requiring sales proceeds to be kept in a shoebox in the stockroom and not in the cash register. FLPE required respondents to explain in writing; they denied knowledge of such a policy. FLPE thereafter dismissed respondents effective May 26, 2008. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal was for just cause due to habitual violation of company procedure. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, annulled its resolutions, and declared respondents illegally dismissed, awarding backwages, separation pay, proportionate 13th month pay, attorney’s fees, and legal interest. FLPE filed the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners validly dismissed respondents from employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION the Court of Appeals Decision. The dismissal was illegal. For a dismissal based on gross and habitual neglect of duty to be valid, the employer must prove by substantial evidence: (1) the existence of the company policy; (2) the employee was properly informed of said policy; (3) the employee’s actions manifested deliberate refusal or willful disregard of the policy; and (4) such actions occurred repeatedly. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The sole evidence of the policy was the October 23, 2003 Memorandum, but petitioners failed to prove it was posted, announced, or disseminated, or that respondents were informed of it. No corroborative evidence, such as signed acknowledgments or witness testimony, was presented. Assuming the policy existed, petitioners failed to prove respondents’ repeated violations constituting gross and habitual neglect. Dela Cruz was on her rest day on March 9, 2008, and Malunes claimed she placed the proceeds in the register upon the store manager’s instruction. The burden of proving just cause for dismissal rests on the employer, and petitioners’ uncorroborated assertions were insufficient. The CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s ruling. The monetary awards were affirmed, with the legal interest modified to six percent (6%) per annum from finality until full satisfaction.