FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015

ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA THERESA V.

SANCHEZ, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the

Decision2 dated November 21, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated April
4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 129108
which affirmed the Decision4 dated November 19, 2012 and the
Resolution5 dated January 14, 2013 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 06-001858-12,
declaring the dismissal of respondent Maria Theresa V. Sanchez
(Sanchez) illegal.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Facts

On June 29, 2009, Sanchez was hired by petitioner St. Luke’s

Medical Center, Inc. (SLMC) as a Staff Nurse, and was eventually
assigned at SLMC, Quezon City’s Pediatric Unit until her
termination on July 6, 2011 for her purported violation of
SLMC’s Code of Discipline, particularly Section 1, Rule 1 on
Acts of Dishonesty, i.e., Robbery, Theft, Pilferage, and
Misappropriation of Funds. 6cralawred

Records reveal that at the end of her shift on May 29, 2011,
Sanchez passed through the SLMC Centralization Entrance/Exit
where she was subjected to the standard inspection procedure by
the security personnel. In the course thereof, the Security
Guard on-duty, Jaime Manzanade (SG Manzanade), noticed a pouch
in her bag and asked her to open the same.7 When opened, said
pouch contained the following assortment of medical stocks which
were subsequently confiscated: (a) Syringe 10cl [4 pieces]; (b)
Syringe 5cl [3 pieces]; (c) Syringe 3cl [3 pieces]; (d)
Micropore [1 piece]; (e) Cotton Balls [1 pack]; (f) Neoflon g26
[1 piece]; (g) Venofix 25 [2 pieces]; and (h) Gloves [4 pieces]
(questioned items).8 Sanchez asked SG Manzanade if she could just
return the pouch inside the treatment room; however, she was not
allowed to do so.9 Instead, she was brought to the SLMC In-House
Security Department (IHSD) where she was directed to write an
Incident Report explaining why she had the questioned items in
her possession.10 She complied11 with the directive and also
submitted an undated handwritten letter of apology12 (handwritten
letter) which reads as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
To In-House Security,

I am very sorry for bringing things from [SLMC] inside my

bag. Pasensya na po. Taos-puso po akong humihingi ng tawad sa
aking pagkakasala, Alam ko po na ako ay nagkamali. Hindi ko po
dapat dinala yung mga gamit sa hospital. Hindi ko po alam kung
[paano] ako magsisimulang humingi ng patawad. Kahit alam kong
bawal ay nagawa kong makapag uwi ng gamit. Marami pang gamit
dahil sa naipon po. Paisa-isa nagagawa kong makakuha pag
nakakalimutan kong isoli. Hindi ko na po naiwan sa nurse station
dahil naisip kong magagamit ko rin po pag minsang nagkakaubusan
ng stocks at talagang may kailangan.

Humihingi po ako ng tawad sa aking ginawa. Isinakripisyo ko ang

hindi pagiging “toxic” sa pagkuha ng gamit para sa bagay na alam
kong mali. Inaamin ko na ako’y naging madamot, pasuway at
makasalanan. Inuna ko ang comfort ko keysa gumawa ng tama.
Manikluhod po akong humihingi ng tawad.

Sorry po. Sorry po. Sorry po talaga.13cralawlawlibrary

In a memorandum14 of even date, the IHSD, Customer Affairs

Division, through Duty Officer Hernani R. Janayon, apprised SLMC
of the incident, highlighting that Sanchez expressly admitted
that she intentionally brought out the questioned items.

An initial investigation was also conducted by the SLMC Division

of Nursing15 which thereafter served Sanchez a notice to
explain.16cralawred

On May 31, 2011, Sanchez submitted an Incident Report

Addendum17 (May 31, 2011 letter), explaining that the questioned
items came from the medication drawers of patients who had
already been discharged, and, as similarly practiced by the
other staff members, she started saving these items as excess
stocks in her pouch, along with other basic items that she uses
during her shift.18 She then put the pouch inside the lowest
drawer of the bedside table in the treatment room for use in
immediate procedures in case replenishment of stocks gets
delayed. However, on the day of the incident, she failed to
return the pouch inside the medication drawer upon getting her
tri-colored pen and calculator and, instead, placed it inside
her bag. Eventually, she forgot about the same as she got caught
up in work, until it was noticed by the guard on duty on her way
out of SMLC’s premises.

Consequently, Sanchez was placed under preventive suspension

effective June 3, 2011 until the conclusion of the investigation
by SLMC’s Employee and Labor Relations Department (ELRD)19 which,
thereafter, required her to explain why she should not be
terminated from service for “acts of dishonesty” due to her
possession of the questioned items in violation of Section 1,
Rule I of the SLMC Code of Discipline.20 In response, she
submitted a letter21 dated June 13, 2011, which merely reiterated
her claims in her previous May 31, 2011 letter. She likewise
requested for a case conference,22 which SLMC granted.23 After
hearing her side, SLMC, on July 4, 2011, informed Sanchez of its
decision to terminate her employment effective closing hours of
July 6, 2011. 24 This prompted her to file a complaint for
illegal dismissal before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No.
07-11042-11.

In her position paper,25 Sanchez maintained her innocence,

claiming that she had no intention of bringing outside the
SLMC’s premises the questioned items since she merely
inadvertently left the pouch containing them in her bag as she
got caught up in work that day. She further asserted that she
could not be found guilty of pilferage since the questioned
items found in her possession were neither SLMC’s nor its
employees’ property. She also stressed the fact that SLMC did
not file any criminal charges against her. Anent her supposed
admission in her handwritten letter, she claimed that she was
unassisted by counsel when she executed the same and, thus, was
inadmissible for being unconstitutional.26cralawred

For its part,27 SLMC contended that Sanchez was validly dismissed
for just cause as she had committed theft in violation of
Section 1,28 Rule I of the SLMC Code of Discipline,29 which
punishes acts of dishonesty, i.e., robbery, theft, pilferage,
and misappropriation of funds, with termination from
service.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The LA Ruling

In a Decision30 dated May 27, 2012, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled
that Sanchez was validly dismissed31for intentionally taking the
property of SLMC’s clients for her own personal benefit,32 which
constitutes an act of dishonesty as provided under SLMC’s Code
of Discipline.

According to the LA, Sanchez’s act of theft was evinced by her

attempt to bring the questioned items that did not belong to her
out of SLMC’s premises; this was found to be analogous to
serious misconduct which is a just cause to dismiss her.33 The
fact that the items she took were neither SLMC’s nor her co-
employees’ property was not found by the LA to be material since
the SLMC Code of Discipline clearly provides that acts of
dishonesty committed to SLMC, its doctors, its employees, as
well as its customers, are punishable by a penalty of
termination from service.34 To this, the LA opined that “[i]t is
rather illogical to distinguish the persons with whom the [said]
acts may be committed as SLMC is also answerable to the
properties of its patients.”35 Moreover, the LA observed that
Sanchez was aware of SLMC’s strict policy regarding the taking
of hospital/medical items as evidenced by her handwritten
letter,36 but nonetheless committed the said misconduct. Finally,
the LA pointed out that SLMC’s non-filing of a criminal case
against Sanchez did not preclude a determination of her serious
misconduct, considering that the filing of a criminal case is
entirely separate and distinct from the determination of just
cause for termination of employment.37cralawred
Aggrieved, Sanchez appealed38 to the
NLRC.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The NLRC Ruling

In a Decision39 dated November 19, 2012, the NLRC reversed and

set aside the LA ruling, and held that Sanchez was illegally
dismissed.

The NLRC declared that the alleged violation of Sanchez was a

unique case, considering that keeping excess hospital stocks or
“hoarding” was an admitted practice amongst nurses in the
Pediatric Unit which had been tolerated by SLMC management for a
long time.40 The NLRC held that while Sanchez expressed remorse
for her misconduct in her handwritten letter, she manifested
that she only “hoarded” the questioned items for future use in
case their medical supplies are depleted, and not for her
personal benefit.41 It further held that SLMC failed to establish
that Sanchez was motivated by ill-will when she brought out the
questioned items, noting: (a) the testimony of SG Manzanade
during the conference before the ELRD of Sanchez’s demeanor when
she was apprehended, i.e., “[d]i naman siya masyado
nataranta,”42 and her consequent offer to return the pouch;43 and
(b) that the said pouch was not hidden underneath the
bag.44 Finally, the NLRC concluded that the punishment of
dismissal was too harsh and the one (1) month preventive
suspension already imposed on and served by Sanchez was the
appropriate penalty.45 Accordingly, the NLRC ordered her
reinstatement, and the payment of backwages, other benefits, and
attorney’s fees.46cralawred

Unconvinced, SLMC moved for reconsideration47 which was, however,

denied in a Resolution48 dated January 14, 2013. Thus, it filed a
petition for certiorari49 before the
CA.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The CA Ruling

In a Decision50 dated November 21, 2013, the CA upheld the NLRC,

ruling that the latter did not gravely abuse its discretion in
finding that Sanchez was illegally dismissed.

It ruled that Sanchez’s offense did not qualify as serious

misconduct, given that: (a) the questioned items found in her
possession were not SLMC property since said items were paid for
by discharged patients, thus discounting any material or
economic damage on SLMC’s part; (b) the retention of excess
medical supplies was an admitted practice amongst nurses in the
Pediatric Unit which was tolerated by SLMC; (c) it was illogical
for Sanchez to leave the pouch in her bag since she would be
subjected to a routine inspection; (d) Sanchez’s lack of
intention to bring out the pouch was manifested by her composed
demeanor upon apprehension and offer to return the pouch to the
treatment room; and (e) had SLMC honestly believed that Sanchez
committed theft or pilferage, it should have filed the
appropriate criminal case, but failed to do so.51 Moreover, while
the CA recognized that SLMC had the management prerogative to
discipline its erring employees, it, however, declared that such
right must be exercised humanely. As such, SLMC should only
impose penalties commensurate with the degree of infraction.
Considering that there was no indication that Sanchez’s actions
were perpetrated for self-interest or for an unlawful objective,
the penalty of dismissal imposed on her was grossly oppressive
and disproportionate to her offense.52cralawred

Dissatisfied, SLMC sought for reconsideration,53 but was denied

in a Resolution54 dated April 4, 2014, hence, this
petition.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue to be resolved is whether or not Sanchez was

illegally dismissed by SLMC.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

The right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment,

aptly called “management prerogative,” gives employers the
freedom to regulate, according to their discretion and best
judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment,
working methods, processes to be followed, working
regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of
workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.55 In
this light, courts often decline to interfere in legitimate
business decisions of employers. In fact, labor laws discourage
interference in employers’ judgment concerning the conduct of
their business.56cralawred

Among the employer’s management prerogatives is the right to

prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper
for the conduct of its business or concern, to provide certain
disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that
the same would be complied with. At the same time, the employee
has the corollary duty to obey all reasonable rules, orders, and
instructions of the employer; and willful or intentional
disobedience thereto, as a general rule, justifies termination
of the contract of service and the dismissal of the
employee.57 Article 296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code
provides:58cralawred

Article 296. Termination by Employer. - An employer may

terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee

of the lawful orders of his employer or his representative in
connection with his work;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

x x x xcralawlawlibrary
Note that for an employee to be validly dismissed on this
ground, the employer’s orders, regulations, or instructions must
be: (1) reasonable and lawful, (2) sufficiently known to the
employee, and (3) in connection with the duties which the
employee has been engaged to discharge.”59cralawred

Tested against the foregoing, the Court finds that Sanchez was
validly dismissed by SLMC for her willful disregard and
disobedience of Section 1, Rule I of the SLMC Code of
Discipline, which reasonably punishes acts of dishonesty, i.e.,
“theft, pilferage of hospital or co-employee property, x x x or
its attempt in any form or manner from the hospital, co-
employees, doctors, visitors, [and] customers (external and
internal)” with termination from employment.60 Such act is
obviously connected with Sanchez’s work, who, as a staff nurse,
is tasked with the proper stewardship of medical supplies.
Significantly, records show that Sanchez made a categorical
admission61 in her handwritten letter62 – i.e., “[k]ahit alam kong
bawal ay nagawa kong [makapag-uwi] ng gamit”63 – that despite her
knowledge of its express prohibition under the SLMC Code of
Discipline, she still knowingly brought out the subject medical
items with her. It is apt to clarify that SLMC cannot be faulted
in construing the taking of the questioned items as an act of
dishonesty (particularly, as theft, pilferage, or its attempt in
any form or manner) considering that the intent to gain may be
reasonably presumed from the furtive taking of useful property
appertaining to another.64 Note that Section 1, Rule 1 of the
SLMC Code of Discipline is further supplemented by the company
policy requiring the turn-over of excess medical supplies/items
for proper handling65 and providing a restriction on taking and
bringing such items out of the SLMC premises without the proper
authorization or “pass” from the official concerned,66 which
Sanchez was equally aware thereof.67 Nevertheless, Sanchez failed
to turn-over the questioned items and, instead, “hoarded” them,
as purportedly practiced by the other staff members in the
Pediatric Unit. As it is clear that the company policies subject
of this case are reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to
the employee, and evidently connected with the latter’s work,
the Court concludes that SLMC dismissed Sanchez for a just
cause.

On a related point, the Court observes that there lies no

competent basis to support the common observation of the NLRC
and the CA that the retention of excess medical supplies was a
tolerated practice among the nurses at the Pediatric Unit. While
there were previous incidents of “hoarding,” it appears that
such acts were – in similar fashion – furtively made and the
items secretly kept, as any excess items found in the concerned
nurse’s possession would have to be confiscated.68 Hence, the
fact that no one was caught and/or sanctioned for transgressing
the prohibition therefor does not mean that the so-called
“hoarding” practice was tolerated by SLMC. Besides, whatever
maybe the justification behind the violation of the company
rules regarding excess medical supplies is immaterial since it
has been established that an infraction was deliberately
committed.69 Doubtless, the deliberate disregard or disobedience
of rules by the employee cannot be countenanced as it may
encourage him or her to do even worse and will render a mockery
of the rules of discipline that employees are required to
observe.70cralawred

Finally, the Court finds it inconsequential that SLMC has not

suffered any actual damage. While damage aggravates the charge,
its absence does not mitigate nor negate the employee’s
liability.71 Neither is SLMC’s non-filing of the appropriate
criminal charges relevant to this analysis. An employee’s guilt
or innocence in a criminal case is not determinative of the
existence of a just or authorized cause for his or her
dismissal.72 It is well-settled that conviction in a criminal
case is not necessary to find just cause for termination of
employment,73 as in this case. Criminal and labor cases involving
an employee arising from the same infraction are separate and
distinct proceedings which should not arrest any judgment from
one to the other.

As it stands, the Court thus holds that the dismissal of Sanchez

was for a just cause, supported by substantial evidence, and is
therefore in order. By declaring otherwise, bereft of any
substantial bases, the NLRC issued a patently and grossly
erroneous ruling tantamount to grave abuse of discretion, which,
in turn, means that the CA erred when it affirmed the same. In
consequence, the grant of the present petition is warranted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November

21, 2013 and the Resolution dated April 4, 2014 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 129108 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated May 27, 2012 in NLRC Case No. NCR
07-11042-11 finding respondent Maria Theresa V. Sanchez to have
been validly dismissed by petitioner St. Luke’s Medical Center,
Inc. is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary