Jamer vs. NLRC

Store cashiers who admit substantial cash shortages, fail to report and satisfactorily explain them, and attempt concealment may be validly dismissed for fraud or willful breach of trust, loss of confidence requiring only reasonable ground or some basis and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Corazon Jamer and Cristina Amortizado served Isetann Department Store and its sister companies for fourteen and thirteen years respectively, rising to store cashiers at the Cubao branch with a salary of P4,182.00 for eight hours work. Isetann Department Store, headed by President/General Manager John Go, is a retail department store corporation. As store cashiers, petitioners were entrusted at the close of business to accumulate floor cashiers' receipts, reconcile cash against tally sheets, deposit collections, and forward records to the Carriedo main branch for counter-checking.

Jamer was hired on February 10, 1976 as cashier at Joy Mart, a sister company of Isetann, promoted after two years to counter supervisor, then transferred to Isetann Carriedo as money changer and in 1982 to Isetann Cubao as money changer until August 31, 1990. Amortizado was hired in May 1977 at Joy Mart as sales clerk, promoted in 1980 to counter cashier, transferred to Young Un Department Store as assistant to the money changer, and in 1985 to Isetann Cubao as store cashier until the same dismissal date. Their function required collecting at day's end the cash sales and tally sheets of floor register clerks, reconciling them to detect shortages or overages, turning collections over for bank deposit, and forwarding recorded transactions to Carriedo for counter-checking.

On July 16, 1990, while reconciling the July 15, 1990 Sunday sales, Jamer first thought the discrepancy was only P1,000.00 but upon reconciling receipts, tally sheets and cash on hand found a shortage of P15,353.78. She informed Amortizado, who re-reconciled and re-counted and confirmed the same shortage. Hoping to find its cause, they did not immediately report it and, failing to reconcile, reported to management only on July 17, 1990. Management required Jamer, Amortizado and fellow store cashier Lutgarda Inducta to explain in writing the P15,353.78 shortage and a P450.00 under-deposit of July 14, 1990 receipts, placed them under preventive suspension, and referred the matter to the Committee on Discipline for administrative investigation.

According to private respondents, the investigation covered not only the P15,353.78 shortage and P450.00 under-deposit but also (a) P1,000.00 borrowed by Inducta from Jamer and (b) P70.00 over-replenishment of petty cash expenses incurred by Amortizado. The Committee's August 23, 1990 decision, approved by the General Manager, found the three cashiers responsible and required restitution, after which notices of termination were sent and admittedly received, culminating in dismissal on August 31, 1990. Petitioners, for their part, admitted the apparent shortage but denied any direct or indirect culpability, stressing fourteen and thirteen years of trusted service, uncontrolled access by at least six persons including supervisor Mrs. Samonte, utility man Alex Mejia and Boy Cabatuando, three distributed keys to the money changer's room, and four persons knowing the vault combination, such that liability could not fairly be ascribed to store cashiers alone without clear proof of wrongdoing.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed on September 26, 1990 a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking reinstatement with backwages and benefits. The Labor Arbiter originally assigned and, after remand, Labor Arbiter Espiritu both found illegal dismissal and ordered reinstatement with backwages computed to promulgation and attorney's fees, while the NLRC on appeal found the dismissals valid and for cause and vacated those awards.

• Grave Abuse in Reversing Labor Arbiter: Petitioner argued that respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it reversed the Labor Arbiter's factual findings and declared the dismissals valid.
• Access by Others and Lax Procedures: Petitioner maintained that at least four other persons besides petitioners had access to the vault, money and keys, so the shortage could not be ascribed to store cashiers alone, and that serious flaw and laxity in management's supervision and handling of company funds negated culpability.

• Shortages Attributable to Cashiers on Duty: Respondent countered that the P15,353.78 shortage on July 15, 1990 and P450.00 under-deposit on July 14, 1990 were attributable to petitioners and Inducta as the cashiers on duty, justifying written explanations within 48 hours and preventive suspension.
• Administrative Finding and Restitution Order: Respondent argued that after a series of investigations the Committee on Discipline duly found petitioners responsible also for the P1,000.00 loan transaction and P70.00 over-replenishment, required restitution in its August 23, 1990 decision approved by the General Manager, and validly terminated them upon unsatisfactory explanations.

• Procedural Bar: Whether failure to move for reconsideration of the NLRC decision warrants outright dismissal of the certiorari petition.
• Grave Abuse in Factual Reversal: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter's factual findings and evaluation of evidence.
• Substantive Cause: Whether petitioners were validly dismissed for fraud or willful breach of trust constituting loss of confidence despite other persons having vault access and despite long service.
• Procedural Due Process: Whether the two-notice requirement and opportunity to be heard were observed before dismissal.

• Procedural Bar: Yes. Certiorari was procedurally defective, a motion for reconsideration being the plain, speedy and adequate remedy that affords the tribunal opportunity to correct error, its omission rendering the petition premature.
• Grave Abuse in Factual Reversal: No. No grave abuse attended the reversal, errors of judgment being distinct from errors of jurisdiction and mere variance in evidentiary assessment not warranting full factual review absent capricious or arbitrary action.
• Substantive Cause: Yes. Dismissal for loss of trust and confidence was valid, admitted unexplained shortages and concealment by cashiers occupying positions of special trust furnishing some basis for the employer's moral conviction, unaffected by others' access, lax procedures, or length of service.
• Procedural Due Process: Yes. Due process was observed, petitioners having received notices on August 2 and August 23, 1990 and full opportunity to explain before the Committee on Discipline prior to August 31, 1990 dismissal.

• Procedural Bar: A motion for reconsideration is intended to afford public respondent opportunity to re-examine legal and factual aspects and cleanse itself of error, and its filing is required before certiorari under Rule 65, Section 1, which lies only where there is no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Because petitioners inexcusably omitted that remedy without exceptional justification, the action was premature and the challenged resolution had become final and executory after the ten-day period.
• Grave Abuse in Factual Reversal: Grave abuse is committed only when judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner, and reversal of the Arbiter by the NLRC does not by itself establish such abuse. So long as the NLRC decision is not bereft of support from the records it deserves respect, since certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment committed in the exercise of jurisdiction.
• Substantive Cause: Article 282(c) permits termination for fraud or willful breach of trust, and the Committee findings, sworn statements and payroll records established the P15,353.78 shortage admitted by petitioners, the P1,000.00 undisclosed loan to cover shortage, the P450.00 under-deposit with admitted P350.00 overage diverted and change-fund borrowing, and the admitted P70.00 over-replenishment used to cover a prior shortage. Failure to report irregularities as they arose and last-ditch concealment breached fiduciary trust; as cashiers handling sales and revenues, honesty beyond suspicion was demanded, wider latitude for dismissal applied than for ordinary rank-and-file, lax procedures addressed to management did not excuse dishonesty, first custody imposed ordinary prudence to count and record before vault deposit, isolated occurrence remained immaterial once some basis existed, and fourteen- and thirteen-year service aggravated disloyalty rather than mitigating it.
• Procedural Due Process: Lawful dismissal requires both just or authorized cause and observance of rudimentary due process, namely two written notices apprising the employee of the acts sought to be punished and informing him of the dismissal decision. Notices individually sent through Human Resources Manager Teresita A. Villanueva on August 2, 1990 and August 23, 1990, hearings before the Committee where petitioners offered no satisfactory explanation, and essence of due process as opportunity to be heard without necessity of formal trial-type hearing satisfied the requirement.

• Certiorari as remedy for jurisdictional errors — Certiorari under Rule 65 corrects only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment; an error committed in the exercise of jurisdiction does not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction, otherwise every erroneous judgment would be void. Applied to reject petitioners' invitation to reweigh the NLRC's factual assessment against the Arbiter's.
• Motion for reconsideration as condition precedent to certiorari — A motion for reconsideration is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy that must first be availed of to give the tribunal opportunity to correct fancied error; omission renders the petition premature and allows the assailed resolution to become final. Applied to find petitioners' direct resort fatally defective.
• Two-fold requirements for lawful dismissal — Dismissal must rest on a valid or authorized cause under Articles 282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Code and must observe procedural due process, including opportunity to be heard and to defend. Applied to test both substantive breach of trust and the two notices and hearings afforded.
• Loss of confidence as just cause; some-basis standard — Loss of confidence is valid ground for dismissal without proof beyond reasonable doubt; sufficient is some basis or reasonable ground to believe or entertain moral conviction that the employee is responsible and thereby unworthy of trust demanded by the position. Applied to sustain dismissal on admitted shortages and unsatisfactory explanations.
• Heightened trust for cashiers and managerial personnel — Cashiers occupy a special and unique position requiring utmost honesty and integrity beyond suspicion because they handle the employer's essential property, sales and revenues; employers enjoy wider latitude in terminating them than ordinary rank-and-file, for whom proof of involvement is required. Applied to hold petitioners to stricter accountability despite claims of shared vault access in People vs. Santos-style analysis adapted to labor setting, citing Del Carmen vs. NLRC.
• Social justice balanced with employer rights — Labor protection authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer and ceases to equalize social forces when used to shield wrongdoing; compassion for livelihood does not compel retention of a gross liability, and long service reflecting disloyalty cannot become a prize moderating dismissal. Applied to reject leniency based on tenure, citing Flores vs. NLRC and Worldwide Papermills, Inc. vs. NLRC.

• "The filing of such a motion is intended to afford public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of a re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case." — States the rationale for requiring a motion for reconsideration before certiorari and why omission is fatal.
• "When a court exercises its jurisdiction an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed." — Defines the jurisdictional-error limitation of certiorari and why mere reversal or evidentiary variance is not grave abuse.
• "Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee and proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct is not required to dismiss him on this charge. It is sufficient if there is "some basis" for such loss of confidence or if the employer has reasonable ground to believe or to entertain the moral conviction that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position." — Canonical formulation of the some-basis standard for breach-of-trust dismissals.
• "The law, in protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer." — Anchors the balancing of labor protection against management's right to dismiss dishonest cashiers.

• Building Care Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 94237, February 26, 1997 — Followed on the necessity of a motion for reconsideration to allow the Commission to correct error and on certiorari not prospering where that adequate remedy was ignored.
• Pure Foods Corporation vs. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415 [1989] — Followed for the rule that certiorari lies only absent appeal or other plain remedy and corrects jurisdictional errors, not errors of judgment.
• Del Carmen vs. NLRC, 203 SCRA 245 [1991] — Followed for heightened honesty required of employees handling money and for labor protection not authorizing employer self-destruction.
• Flores vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 350 [1993] — Followed to hold that an employer cannot be compelled to retain employees guilty of malfeasance and that long service aggravates rather than mitigates disloyalty.
• San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 128 SCRA 180 [1984] — Followed to hold that lax accounting procedures addressed to management do not excuse employee dishonesty or bar termination for loss of confidence.
• Metro Drug Corporation vs. NLRC, 143 SCRA 132 [1986]; Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation vs. NUWHRAIN [Ramada Chapter], 159 SCRA 212 [1988] — Followed for wider latitude in dismissing managerial and responsible personnel such as cashiers compared to ordinary rank-and-file.
• Philippine Savings Bank vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 111173, September 4, 1996 — Followed to hold due process satisfied by fair opportunity to explain without mandatory formal trial-type hearing.

• Article 282(c), Labor Code, as amended — Authorizes termination for fraud or willful breach of trust reposed by the employer or representative; applied to sustain dismissal for admitted shortages, non-reporting and concealment by store cashiers.
• Rule 65, Section 1, Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended — Allows certiorari only for acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion where no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy exists; applied to bar the petition for failure to move for reconsideration.
• Sections 2-6, Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, as amended — Require two written notices before dismissal, first apprising of charges and second of the decision; applied with jurisprudence to find August 2 and August 23, 1990 notices and Committee hearings compliant.

Bellosillo, J., Vitug, J. and Kapunan, J., concur. No separate concurring reasoning beyond concurrence is recounted in the text.