GR 209086; (October, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209086. October 17, 2016
ANGELITO R. PUBLICO, PETITIONER, VS. HOSPITAL MANAGERS, INC., ARCHDIOCESE OF MANILA – DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADENAME AND STYLE OF “CARDINAL SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER”, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Angelito R. Publico was employed in 1989 and was the Chief of the Blood Bank Section at Cardinal Santos Medical Center (CSMC). In 2008, respondent Hospital Managers, Inc. (HMI), the hospital operator, dismissed Publico for gross and habitual negligence. The charges stemmed from unauthorized sales of blood and apheresis units by laboratory personnel under his supervision over three years, which involved fake receipts and failure to remit payments. HMI alleged Publico failed to properly supervise, monitor, and implement preventive measures. Publico denied direct participation, claiming he only supervised morning shift personnel and that the transactions occurred on the night shift.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled Publico was illegally dismissed but held the Archdiocese of Manila (RCAM), the hospital owner, solely liable, finding Publico was employed before HMI’s management contract. The NLRC reversed, declaring HMI as the true employer solely liable for illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals (CA) then dismissed Publico’s complaint, upholding the dismissal as valid due to his gross negligence as a supervisor.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the validity of Publico’s dismissal for gross negligence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic centers on the nature of a supervisor’s liability for neglect of duty. The Court clarified that Publico’s liability did not depend on proof of his direct participation in or personal knowledge of the unauthorized sales. His offense was gross negligence in his supervisory duties, which allowed the anomalous transactions to persist for years in his department. The charges against him were explicitly for negligence and non-observance of operating procedures, pertaining to his failure to perform the diligence demanded of his position.
While factual findings of labor tribunals are generally final, the CA, in its certiorari jurisdiction, correctly re-examined the evidence, which showed a blatant disregard for established rules. Publico’s failure to exercise oversight and implement controls constituted gross negligence, a valid ground for dismissal under the law. The Court found no arbitrariness in the CA’s conclusion that the employer, HMI, sufficiently established the basis for termination. Thus, the dismissal was for a just cause and legally sound.