St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. vs. Sanchez

12/19/21, 6:15 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
G.R. No. 212054. March 11, 2015.*

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, 2015 219

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
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017dd2376ce9565d9a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/15
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
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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, 2015 221


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

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, 2015 223

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 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.
_______________
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

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, 2015 225

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

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, 2015 227

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 reconsideration47 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

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.
_______________
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, 2015 229

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

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, 2015 231

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
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 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

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, 2015 233

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

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——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. vs. Sanchez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. vs. Sanchez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. vs. Sanchez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/19/21, 6:15 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753

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

Labor Law; Management Prerogatives; Among the employer’s

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 219

disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

dismissal. It is well-settled that conviction in a criminal case is not

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 221

security personnel. In the course thereof, the Security Guard on-

1 Rollo, pp. 3-35.

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

open the same.7 When opened, said pouch contained the

7 Id., at pp. 89 and 200.

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 223

gamit para sa bagay na alam kong mali. Inaamin ko na ako’y naging

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Consequently, Sanchez was placed under preventive suspension

19 See memorandum dated June 1, 2011 of Labor Relations Manager, ELRD

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 225

26 Id., at pp. 203-206.

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

co-employees’ property was not found by the LA to be material

dishonesty committed to SLMC, its doctors, its employees, as well

34 Id., at pp. 211-212.

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 227

written letter, she manifested that she only “hoarded” the

Sanchez’s demeanor when she was apprehended, i.e., “[d]i naman

41 Id., at pp. 261-262.

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

51 Id., at pp. 47-48.

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 229

The Court’s Ruling

duty to obey all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Article 296. Termination by Employer.—An employer may terminate

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 231

alam kong bawal ay nagawa kong [makapag-uwi] ng gamit”63

government agents, but merely an inspection/investigation conducted by private

surrendered for proper handling as specified in the Computerized Nursing

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sufficiently known to the employee, and evidently connected

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 233

Finally, the Court finds it inconsequential that SLMC has not

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

Notes.—For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like