ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., petitioner, vs. MARIA THERESA V.

SANCHEZ, respondent.
Labor Law; Management Prerogatives; 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.—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, layoff of workers and the
discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. 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. 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
_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

219
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 219
2015
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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.
Same; Termination of Employment; Willful Disobedience; For an employee to be validly dismissed
on willful disobedience, 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.”—Article 296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code provides: 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; x x x x 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.”
Same; Same; Same; 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.—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. 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. Doubtless, the deliberate disregard or
disobedience of rules by the employee cannot be countenanced as it may encourage him or her to
 220
22 SUPREME COURT
0 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to
observe.
Same; Same; Conviction in Criminal Case; 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. It is well-settled
that conviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find just cause for termination of employment.—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. 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. It
is well-settled that conviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find just cause for termination of
employment, 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Quasha, Ancheta, Peña & Nolasco for petitioner.
  Ligon, Solis, Mejia, Florendo Law Firm for respondent.
221
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 221
2015
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
 
 
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 C.A.-G.R. S.P. 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
_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 3-35.
2  Id., at pp. 40-50. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and
Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3  Id., at pp. 52-53.
4  Id., at pp. 255-265. Penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palaña, with Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo
and Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena, concurring.
5  Id., at pp. 285-286.
6  Id., at p. 255.

222
22 SUPREME COURT
2 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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
_______________

7   Id., at pp. 89 and 200.

8   Id., at p. 108. The total value of the medical items seized from Sanchez allegedly amounted to P615.00.
9   Id., at p. 41.
10  Id.
 11  See Incident Report dated May 29, 2011; id., at p. 112.
12  Id., at p. 110.

223
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 223
2015
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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.
An initial investigation was also conducted by the SLMC Division of Nursing 15 which
thereafter served Sanchez a notice to explain.16
On May 31, 2011, Sanchez submitted an Incident Report Addendum 17 (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.
_______________

13  Id.
14  Id., at p. 108.
15  Id., at p. 201
16  Id., at p. 111.
17  Id., at p. 114.
18  Such as black ball pen, tri-colored pen, stamp/trodat, bandage, scissors, and calculator. Id.

224
22 SUPREME COURT
4 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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
_______________

19  See memorandum dated June 1, 2011 of Labor Relations Manager, ELRD Benjamin C. Altavas; id., at p. 168.
20  See memorandum dated June 9, 2011 of Labor Relations Manager Allan “Jeremy” Raymond R. Ignacio; id., at p.
115.
21  Id., at pp. 116-117.
22  Id., at p. 117.
23  Hearings were conducted on June 14 and 15, 2011; id., at pp. 118 and 172-181.
24  See memorandum dated July 4, 2011; id., at pp. 118-119.
25  Dated September 14, 2011. Id., at pp. 154-164.

225
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 225
2015
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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’s 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
_______________

26  Id., at pp. 203-206.

27  Id., at pp. 88-107. Dated September 13, 2011.
28  Id., at p. 125. Section 1, Rule I of SLMC Code of Discipline reads:
RULE I – ACTS OF DISHONESTY
 Section 1. Robbery, Theft, Pilferage, and Misappropriation of Funds
Robbery, theft, pilferage of hospital or co-employee property, and/or misappropriation of funds or its attempt in any
form or manner from the hospital, co-employees, doctors, visitors, customers (external and internal).
29  Id., at pp. 120-138.
30  Id., at pp. 199-215. Penned by Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan.
31  Id., at p. 208.
32  Id., at p. 210.
33  Id., at p. 209.

226
22 SUPREME COURT
6 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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’s 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 hand-
_______________

34  Id., at pp. 211-212.

35  Id., at p. 212.
36  Id., at p. 213.
37  Id., at p. 214.
38  See Notice of Appeal dated June 21, 2012; id., at pp. 216-217.
39  Id., at pp. 255-265.
40  Id., at p. 261.

227
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 227
2015
St. Luke's Medical Center,
 Inc. vs. Sanchez
written 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.46
Unconvinced, SLMC moved for reconsideration 47 which was, however, denied in a
Resolution48 dated January 14, 2013. Thus, it filed a petition for certiorari49 before the CA.
 
The CA’s 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.
_______________

41  Id., at pp. 261-262.

42  Id., at p. 262. See also minutes of the case conference before the ELRD held on June 14, 2011; id., at p. 174.
43  Id., at pp. 174 and 263.
44  Id., at p. 262.
45  Id., at p. 263.
46  Id., at pp. 263-264.
47  See Motion for Reconsideration dated December 7, 2012; id., at pp. 266-283.
48  Id., at pp. 285-286.
49  Dated March 22, 2013. Id., at pp. 287-311.
50  Id., at pp. 40-50.

228
22 SUPREME COURT
8 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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 Resolution 54 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.
_______________

51  Id., at pp. 47-48.

52  Id., at pp. 48-49.
53  See Motion for Reconsideration dated December 17, 2013; id., at pp. 54-69.
54  Id., at pp. 52-53.

229
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 229
2015
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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, layoff 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
55  Deles, Jr. v. NLRC, 384 Phil. 271, 281-282; 327 SCRA 540, 547-548 (2000).
56  See Phil. Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Aguinaldo, 499 Phil. 215, 225; 460 SCRA 229, 239 (2005).
57  Malabago v. NLRC, 533 Phil. 292, 300; 501 SCRA 659, 667 (2006).
58  As renumbered by Republic Act No. (RA) 10151, entitled “An Act Allowing the Employment of Night Workers,
Thereby Repealing Articles 130 and 131 of Presidential Decree Number Four Hundred Forty-Two, as Amended,
Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines,” as further amended by RA 10361,

230
23 SUPREME COURT
0 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
 St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
 
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.
x x x x
 
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
_______________

 entitled “An Act Instituting Policies for the Protection and Welfare of Domestic Workers,” otherwise known as the
“Domestic Workers Act” or “Batas Kasambahay.”
59  Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 75907, March 23, 1992, 207 SCRA 415,
421.
60  Rollo, p. 125.
61  Note that Sanchez’s objection on the admissibility of her handwritten letter based on the absence of counsel at the
time of its execution (an invocation of paragraphs 1 and 3, Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution) remains
untenable considering that the present case does not involve a custodial investigation conducted by

231
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 231
2015
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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 I of
the SLMC Code of Discipline is further supplemented by the company policy requiring the
turnover of excess medical supplies/items for proper handling 65 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 turnover 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,
_______________

government agents, but merely an inspection/investigation conducted by private individuals, i.e., the security of
SLMC. In People v. Marti [271 Phil. 51, 61; 193 SCRA 57, 67 (1991)], it was held that “the Bill of Rights embodied in
the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals.”
62  Rollo, p. 110.
63  Id.
64  See Beltran, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 181355, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 728, 744-745.
65  In the memorandum dated July 4, 2011,  it was mentioned that excess medical items “bought and paid for by the
patients’ parents or relatives x x x  should [be] surrendered for proper handling as specified in the Computerized Nursing
Transcription System, specifically the [turn-in] of served, but unused, and unserved items.” See Rollo, p. 118.
66  See Section 7.c. of the SLMC Code of Discipline; id., at p. 126. See also id., at p. 119.
67  As admitted in her handwritten letter. Id., at p. 110.

232
23 SUPREME COURT
2 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
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
_______________

68  During the case conference before the ELRD, Ms. Ruth Elejorde, the Nurse Unit Manager at the SLMC Pediatric
Unit, testified in this wise:
“… dati kasi nangyari na yan noon, na parang hoarding na tinatawag. Tapos may box sila noon na pinagtataguan.
Ngayon, yung mga ano nila, siguro as a manager tinatago rin nila sa akin kasi alam nila na ico-confiscate ko. So meron
silang mga pouch. Kaya lang di ko kasi ugaling magbukas kasi privacy issue naman po yun sa kanila.” (See Rollo, p. 261)
69  See San Miguel Corporation v. Ubaldo, G.R. No. 92859, February 1, 1993, 218 SCRA 293, 300.
70  Areno, Jr. v. Skycable PCC-Baguio, 625 Phil. 561, 579; 611 SCRA 721, 738 (2010).

233
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 233
2015
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
 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 C.A.-G.R. S.P. 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.
_______________

71  Panuncillo v. CAP Philippines, Inc., 544 Phil. 256, 268; 515 SCRA 323, 334 (2007), citing Lopez v. NLRC
(2nd Div.), 513 Phil. 731, 738; 477 SCRA 596, 602 (2005).
72  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Phils. v. Guanzon, 254 Phil. 578, 584; 172 SCRA 571, 577 (1989).
73  Reno Foods, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan, 629 Phil. 247, 256; 615 SCRA 240,
248 (2010).

234
23 SUPREME COURT
4 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
St. Luke's Medical Center,
Inc. vs. Sanchez
SO ORDERED.
  Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.
Notes.—For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, these two elements must
concur: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a
wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful,
made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to
discharge. (R.B. Michael Press vs. Galit, 545 SCRA 23 [2008]; Cosmos Bottling Corporation
vs. Nagrama, Jr., 547 SCRA 571 [2008])
Agad committed a serious infraction amounting to theft of company property; This act is akin
to a serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer in connection with his work, a just cause for termination of employment recognized
under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. (Caltex [Philippines], Inc. vs. Agad, 619 SCRA 196
[2010])
——o0o——