Digest 2023 - Globe Telecom Vs Ebitner - 042723

GLOBE TELECOM, INC VS KAY ABASTILLAS EBITNER
G.R. No. 242286, JANUARY 16,2023

HERNANDO, J.:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of CA’s decision which awarded separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement to respondent and denied petitioner's MR.
FACTS:
 Ebitner was petitioner's employee, hired in June 2005. Respondent rose from the rank
through the years until she was eventually promoted as Retail Shop Specialist.
 In 2015, petitioner served on respondent a Notice to Explain, directing her to give details as
to why she facilitated a credit adjustment on her father's account without proper notation
on its justification and was preventively suspended.
 In response, respondent admitted that she was the one who facilitated the credit
adjustment on October 24, 2014, using her own user ID; However, respondent claimed that
she could no longer remember the incident and why she did it. Thus, she requested that she
be allowed to check the transaction records. Respondent also maintained that had the
transaction been invalid, she would have received an e-mail from the management within
one month after the date of the transaction, as per company policy. Lastly, respondent
expressed willingness to reimburse the amount involved in case the transaction was proved
invalid.
 During the hearing, respondent admitted that the account involved was under her father's
name, but the enduser was her mother, who complained of dropped calls every time she
made a phone call. Thus, as a sign of goodwill, she adjusted the "MSF" (monthly service fee).
Respondent maintained, however, that she made the proper notation upon adjusting the
amount due.
 On April 30, 2015, petitioner served upon the former a Notice of Decision, stating that she
was found to have failed to follow basic standard procedures and that there were lapses in
relation to the credit adjustment made. Therefore, respondent was dismissed from service
on the ground of fraud against the company and serious misconduct. Thus, Respondent filed
a Complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and damages against petitioner.
 LA DECISION - in favor of respondent and held that while she may have failed to follow
company procedures, the penalty of dismissal is too harsh and unreasonable under the
circumstances. Curiously however, the arbiter did not categorically declare respondent to
have been illegally dismissed.
 Dissatisfied, both parties appealed to the NLRC. NLRC DECISION - respondent was illegally
dismissed and granted her full backwages.
 Surprisingly however, the NLRC granted petitioner's MR and reversed its earlier decision by
declaring petitioner not guilty of illegal dismissal. Thus, it deleted all the monetary awards it
earlier granted to respondent. Hence, the filing of a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.
1
 CA DECISION - modified the NLRC resolution and reinstated the monetary awards granted to
respondent and affirmed the finding of the NLRC that there was just cause for respondent's
dismissal but granted Abitner separation pay
 Aggrieved by the CA Decision and Resolution, petitioner filed the present petition. Petitioner
claims that the CA committed error in awarding separation pay since such may only be done
if the employee was validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those
reflecting on their moral character.
ISSUES
1. Is petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal? YES
2. Is respondent entitled to separation pay?
HELD:
1. IS PETITIONER GUILTY OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL? YES
Petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal
To recap, the dismissal was predicated on "serious misconduct" and "fraud against the company," as
stated in the Notice to Explain sent to respondent. In Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. vs.
KMM-Katipunan, misconduct as basis for dismissal was further explained:
To summarize, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following
elements must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of
the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the
employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.
Meanwhile, fraud or dishonesty as a ground for dismissal is defined as the "disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in
principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."
We find that petitioner failed to fully establish these grounds.
a. Petitioner failed to prove serious misconduct on the part of respondent
In justifying the dismissal, petitioner alleges that respondent's failure to follow the SOP in credit
adjustments - by indicating a notation - constituted serious misconduct. We disagree.
As discussed above, the alleged serious misconduct must have been done with wrongful intent. In
the present case, however, petitioner failed to convincingly prove that the credit adjustment made
by respondent was done with wrongful intent.
To reiterate, while a violation of a company procedure may constitute misconduct in the ordinary
sense, serious misconduct as a ground for dismissal requires, wrongful intent. Therefore, even
granting that respondent indeed failed to indicate the proper notation in the credit adjustment,
petitioner was not able to clearly show what was the effect of this lack of notation. Did the lack of
notation conceal the adjustment? Did it hide the identity of the person who made the adjustment?
While it may have relieved her father from paying, was it really unwarranted, therefore depriving
petitioner of its lawful income? Again, petitioner's failure to clarify these matters leaves the Court in
the dark. For all We know, the adjustment may have been perfectly valid and justified, only without
2
the proper notation. Further, We just cannot agree with the assumption of the CA that the lack of
notation leads to the conclusion that respondent intended to make the adjustment undetected.
There is no evidence presented by petitioner supporting such assumption.
Lastly, the fact that respondent herself made the adjustment on her own father's account cannot be
taken against her for the simple reason that petitioner failed to prove, much less allege, that such is
against company policy.
b. Petitioner failed to prove fraud committed by respondent
Similar to the discussion above, petitioner contends that respondent's act constituted fraud which
warranted her dismissal. Again, We disagree.
Article 282 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 442, also known as the Labor Code of the Philippines,
provides:
Article 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:
c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him [ or her] by his [ or her]
employer or duly authorized representative;
Although written together, fraud is actually a separate and distinct ground for dismissal from the
other ground provided which is loss of trust and confidence. Further, although fraud necessarily
results in loss of trust and confidence, the reverse is not always true; i.e., loss of trust and confidence
does not always stem from fraud. Thus, for purposes of the present case, We shall limit the
discussion on fraud, as alleged by petitioner.
Petitioner's contentions are highly speculative. First, it erroneously assumes that respondent has
already done the misdeed in the past and second, it falsely speculates that all of its 5,000 employees
are predisposed to unduly adjust the bills of their friends and relatives. It thus concludes that
because of these circumstances, as a measure of self-preservation, the dismissal of respondent was
warranted. It does not take much to see that petitioner's position is shallow at best. While petitioner
is perfectly free to take precautionary measures to protect its interests, it certainly cannot do so at
the expense of its employees.
Further and more importantly, We stress that respondent was authorized to make credit adjustment
as part of her job. Note that petitioner does not complain about the credit adjustment, only that the
respondent did not make the proper notation. Once again, We cannot see how this - a mere
violation in SOP - in itself translates to fraud and/or dishonesty and wish to highlight that petitioner
failed to clearly demonstrate such. We cannot simply assume fraud or dishonesty on the part of
respondent, as the same implies a "conscious and intentional design to evade the normal fulfillment
of existing obligations." Moreover, fraud must be proven to have been done intentionally,
knowingly, and purposely; it must not be simply a result of carelessness, negligence, or inattention.
In other words, the burden was upon petitioner to prove all these things. Unfortunately, it failed
to do so.
Respondent is entitled to full backwages and separation pay. Normally, an illegally dismissed
employee is entitled to full backwages and reinstatement. In view however of the strained relations
between the parties, the reinstatement is no longer feasible and therefore separation pay in its lieu
is more appropriate.

Digest 2023 - Globe Telecom Vs Ebitner - 042723

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest 2023 - Globe Telecom Vs Ebitner - 042723

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Digest 2023 - Globe Telecom Vs Ebitner - 042723

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GLOBE TELECOM, INC VS KAY ABASTILLAS EBITNER

G.R. No. 242286, JANUARY 16,2023

NATURE OF THE CASE:

1. Is petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal? YES

2. Is respondent entitled to separation pay?

1. IS PETITIONER GUILTY OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL? YES

Petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal

We find that petitioner failed to fully establish these grounds.

a. Petitioner failed to prove serious misconduct on the part of respondent

b. Petitioner failed to prove fraud committed by respondent

You might also like