G.R. No.

212054

ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
MARIA THERESA V. SANCHEZ, Respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated November
21, 2013 and the Resolution3dated 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.

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.6

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:

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.13

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.1awp++i1

An initial investigation was also conducted by the SLMC Division of Nursing15 which
thereafter served Sanchez a notice to explain.16

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.26
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.

The LA Ruling

In a Decision30 dated May 27, 2012, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Sanchez was
validly dismissed31 for 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.37

Aggrieved, Sanchez appealed38 to the NLRC.

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.45Accordingly, the NLRC ordered her
 reinstatement, and the payment of backwages, other benefits, and attorney's
fees.46

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.

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.52

Dissatisfied, SLMC sought for reconsideration,53 but was denied in a Resolution54

dated April 4, 2014, hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue to be resolved is whether or not Sanchez was illegally dismissed by
SLMC.

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.56
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:58

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;

xxxx

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."59

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.64Note 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.70

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.