G.R. No. 214186 , August 3, 2016
RODFHEL BACLAAN TORREFIEL, MYRA SUACILLO, LORLIE ORENDAY, SHEELA LAO, AND LEODELYN LIBOT, PETITIONERS, VS. BEAUTY LANE PHILS., INC./MS. MA. HENEDINA D. TOBOJKA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondent Beauty Lane Phils., Inc., an importer and distributor of beauty products including “Brazilian Blowout,” discovered inventory discrepancies in its warehouse in January 2013. An investigation and CCTV installation followed. Information was received that a former employee was selling “Brazilian Blowout” sets at lower prices, and it was found that incomplete sets were being pilfered by taking items from different sets to make complete ones. On February 1, 2013, respondents conducted a full investigation. They discovered that Rean Metro Salon, a client under petitioner Torrefiel’s account, had not ordered “Brazilian Blowout” for months but continued to offer it. Petitioners Torrefiel and Lao were found to have sold a different product (Gigi Professional Waxing System) to an unapproved client. Sales Executive Coke Gonzales confided that Lao asked her to sell opened bottles of Brazilian Blowout products. On February 4, 2013, respondents issued Notices to Explain and Preventive Suspension against petitioners and two other employees. Petitioner Lao admitted asking Gonzales to help sell the inventory of a client, Skinsational Salon, but claimed it was at the owner’s request. Another employee, Marcel Mendoza, implicated Torrefiel and Lao, stating they offered him a bottle of Professional Smoothing Solution at a low price. Petitioners failed to appear at the February 27, 2013 administrative hearing, sending letters instead stating they had submitted written explanations and had a DOLE appointment. On February 28, 2013, respondents issued Notices of Termination. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing they had no access to the stolen products. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding valid cause and due process. The NLRC reversed, finding illegal dismissal due to lack of proof of involvement and, for some petitioners, lack of due process. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioners were validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence and that due process was observed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that the dismissal was based on a just cause and that due process was complied with.
On the substantive aspect, the Court found that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of pilferage and petitioners’ involvement. Petitioners held positions that involved a degree of trust and confidence. Torrefiel, as Sales Coordinator, had access to client accounts and sales orders. Lao and Libot, as beauty educators, had access to the training center and products. Suacillo and Orenday, as administrative and sales/inventory personnel, had responsibilities related to office and inventory management. The circumstances, including inventory discrepancies, the selling of products at lower prices, and the statements of co-employees Mendoza and Gonzales, constituted substantial evidence of their participation in the pilferage scheme. Petitioners’ bare denials could not prevail over this evidence. The affidavit of Lea Tagupa (owner of Skinsational Salon) explaining Lao’s actions did not absolve petitioners, as it did not address the core issue of the pilferage from Beauty Lane’s warehouse.
On the procedural aspect, the Court ruled that due process was observed. Respondents issued Notices to Explain on February 4, 2013, which detailed the specific acts and omissions petitioners were being asked to explain. Petitioners submitted their written explanations. An administrative hearing was scheduled for February 27, 2013, but petitioners chose not to attend, thereby waiving their right to a formal hearing. After evaluating the evidence, respondents issued the Notices of Termination on February 28, 2013. This two-notice requirement was satisfied. The fact that Suacillo and Orenday claimed the notices did not specify the charges against them was belied by the records, which showed the notices enumerated the allegations. Therefore, petitioners were legally dismissed.