[ G.R. No. 140522. January 17, 2000]

REYLINDA FAMARAN vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2000.

G.R. No. 140522 (Reylinda Famaran vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner against private respondents San Jose Water Service and Development Cooperative Inc./Abe Anovert. Petitioner started working as accounting clerk but was promoted to bookkeeper of private respondent's Cooperative until her termination. She worked with respondent for a total of 5 years.

She was preventively suspended for violating the cooperative's policies, rules and regulations, viz:

1. Failure to monitor book of accounts, liquidation and other allied duties;

2. Failure to perform her duties in accordance with her 201 File;

3. Misrepresentations of actual report on seminar held last Nov. 12 to 14, 1995 until discovered lately;

4. Fabrication/misrepresentation of seminar narrative reports and submission of false liquidation report.

Petitioner denied Nos. 1 and 2, admitted No. 3 and averred that as to No. 4 the unauthorized liquidation of expenses was subsequently returned by way of deduction from her salary. She was finally dismissed from employment for willful breach of trust, loss of confidence and fraud. She was terminated because: she misrepresented that she attended the seminar when in fact she did not as the seminar did not take place; she received the corresponding salary for dates of supposed seminar; and she liquidated fictitious expenses in connection therewith.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner stating that it was a first and minor offense warranting only a written warning and that there was no sufficient evidence to support the charges.

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and ruled for the dismissal of the complaint for illegal termination stating that there was substantial proof of the basis for loss of confidence. Pursuant to the ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes case, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which sustained the NLRC. The CA ruled that petitioner occupies a position (bookkeeper) reposed with trust and confidence and that her acts of falsely representing her attendance in a seminar which did not transpire and collecting the corresponding salary and related expenses constitute breach of trust of a serious nature. The CA also ruled that failure of petitioner to move for reconsideration of the NLRC decision is fatal to his petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner submits the following grounds for review, to wit: whether the position of a bookkeeper is one vested with trust and confidence; whether there is basis for employer's loss of confidence and whether the penalty of dismissal commensurate with the offense committed; and whether petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the National Labor Relations Commission is fatal to a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals correctly found that the position of a bookkeeper is routinely charged with the care and custody of employer's money or property. The respondent court also made a factual finding that there is basis for the charge that petitioner falsely represented her attendance in a seminar and fraudulently collected her corresponding salary and seminar-related expenses. The procedural issue of whether failure to file a motion for reconsideration should be fatal to a petition for certiorari need not be resolved as petitioner nevertheless fails in the merits of the case. The Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in affirming the decision of the National labor Relations Commission finding that there is no case of illegal dismissal. The petition is, likewise, denied for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show any special and important reason to warrant the exercise by the Supreme Court of its judicial discretion to grant the petition.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com