MHA Case: Just cause for termination

March 11, 2015 G.R. No. 212054

ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner,vs. MARIA THERESA V.

SANCHEZ, Respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

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++i 1

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 Labor Arbiter 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.

Aggrieved, Sanchez appealed38 to the NLRC.

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

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

Thus, it filed a petition for certiorari49 before the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals Ruling

In a Decision50 dated November 21, 2013, the Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC in finding that
Sanchez was illegally dismissed.

Supreme Court Ruling

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

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;

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.64

Note that Section 1, Rule 1 of the SLMC Code of Discipline is further supplemented by the company
policy requiring the turn-over of excess medical supplies/items for proper handling65 and providing a
restriction on taking and bringing such items out of the SLMC premises without the proper
authorization or "pass" from the official concerned,66 which Sanchez was equally aware thereof.67

Nevertheless, Sanchez failed to turn-over the questioned items and, instead, "hoarded" them, as
purportedly practiced by the other staff members in the Pediatric Unit. As it is clear that the company
policies subject of this case are reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to the employee, and
evidently connected with the latter's work, the Court concludes that SLMC dismissed Sanchez for a
just cause.

On a related point, the Court observes that there lies no competent basis to support the common
observation of the NLRC and the CA that the retention of excess medical supplies was a tolerated
practice among the nurses at the Pediatric Unit. While there were previous incidents of "hoarding," it
appears that such acts were - in similar fashion - furtively made and the items secretly kept, as any
excess items found in the concerned nurse's possession would have to be confiscated.68

Hence, the fact that no one was caught and/or sanctioned for transgressing the prohibition therefor
does not mean that the so-called "hoarding" practice was tolerated by SLMC. Besides, whatever
maybe the justification behind the violation of the company rules regarding excess medical supplies
is immaterial since it has been established that an infraction was deliberately committed.69 Doubtless,
the deliberate disregard or disobedience of rules by the employee cannot be countenanced as it may
encourage him or her to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that
employees are required to observe.70

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 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
finding respondent Maria Theresa V. Sanchez to have been validly dismissed by petitioner St.
Luke's Medical Center, Inc. is hereby REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.

Breakout Questions

1. List the procedure on how the hospital dismissed the employee.