Copy Central Digital Copy Solution vs Marilyn Domrique and Carina Leano

Domrique and Leano worked as photocopy machine operators on Feb 1993, Jan 1996,
respectively in Laoag City. Domrique received 200.00 (including the 55 allowance), while Leano
recedive 120. Earn 7% of the earning in each month.

Domrique assigned to handle 1 liquid and 1 powder machine. Custodian of photocopying

materials (bond paper and toners). Leano handles 1 liquid photo copier and to keep the money
from the customer, Oct 1-31, 2005.

Oct 2005, Leano, together with Grace Lorenzo, another employee, sent a formal letter to the
Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), La Union complaining
alleged labor standard violations.

Labor Inspector of DOLE conducted inspection, certain labor standards violations:

underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave.

Nov 2005, Susana Montano, manager, ordered the audit of their branch in Laoag City. The meter
readings done by a Cliezelle Jacinto discovered that there were discrepancies in the reading
reports submitted by Domrique and Leano. She concluded that respondents conspired to cheat
on themeter reading in order to pocket the difference between their report and the actual meter
reading.

Based on Jacinto’s report, Domrique allegedly pocketed 31, 472.50 while leano pocketed 3, 501.

Susana went to the police to report and respondents were required to execute a document
Solemn Promise.

Nov 2004, Susana issued termination letter to Domrique; the company lost its trust and
confidence who has found to have defrauded the company by making a false report and
misappropriating 195 reams of bond paper. A termination letter was sent to Leano on the
ground of defrauding the company by making a false report amounting to 3, 501 deficit.

They filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioner before
the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, to have been dismissed without just cause and without due
process.

They denied that there was misappropriation and claimed that arrangement was allowed in their
company to render photocopying services to school employees where payments are collected
only on a weekly or monthly basis. Susana conducted audit on Nov 2, a nonworking holiday as
such, they still have receivables from their customers they have not remit.

They agreed to sign a document entitled Naiget Nga Kari to remit the amount of their receivables
to put an end to controversy. They delivered the amounts of 17, 000 and 1, 600. Petitioner did
reinstate them to their position.

Petitioner claimed that they lost trust and confidence after it was discovered that the two
defrauded them by making false meter reading and for misappropriating bond paper. The matter
was reported in Laoag City Police station and a complaint for qualified theft was filed pending in
RTC. Only made partial payments but still have balance. Domrique had already defrauded them
in 2001 but out of compassion allowed her to continue.

LA decided in favor of respondents; illegally dismissed petitioners are directed to pay 243, 600
for the underpayment of wages, backwages and separation pay, plus attorney’s fees. Petitioners
failed to afford them due process bec the latter were not given notice of charges to explain their
side before they dismissed. The witnesses are mere hearsay for they did not execute sworn
statements to confirm the allegation.

NLRC denied the petition, there is nothing in the document Naiget Nga Kari to show that
respondents misappropriated any amount due to petitioner. Criminal action filed against them
does not justify their dismissal from employment. Dismissed without any afforded right to
explain.
Moved for reconsideration and reversed and set aside its decision. The deed executed by
respondents and subsequent acts of paying petitioners are construed as admission on their part
for committing the illegal acts.

CA reversed NLRC decision. No sufficient evidence to prove dismissal from employment.

Petitioner claims that R are guilty of theft (misappropriating the income) and this constitute
serious misconduct and fraud or breach of trust which are just causes of termination under Art
282.

SC ruled against it. Nothing in the deed would prove that R admitted committed theft against P.
They simply promised to return the amounts stated in the document without admitting that they
took the same. The payments did not prove theft. These are only receivables and collectible for
photocopying services. Consistent with R, the time they were made to account for the
photocopying machines, there were still outstanding accounts from their customers.

Assistant City Prosecutor of Laoag found probable cause to indict R for the crime of qualified
theft does not mean that there exists a valid ground for their termination.

Nicolas V NLRC – criminal conviction is not necessary to find just cause for employment
termination. Employees acquittal in a criminal case, will not preclude a determination in a labor
case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the employer’s interest. The finding of probable cause is
not followed by automatic adoption of such finding by the labor tribunals.

P cannot argue that since prosecutor found probable cause for theft, the LA must follow the
findings of their termination. Proof required for purposes that differ from one and the other are
likewise different.

P, under the procedural aspect, failed to observe the proper procedure in terminating employees.

Sec 2, Rule 23, Book 5 of Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides” for termination
based on just cases in Art 282: (a) a written notice served on the employee specifying the
ground/s for termination and giving said employee opportunity to explain; (b) a hearing or
conference during which the employee, with the assistance of counsel if the employee desires, is
given the opportunity to respond to the charge, present evidence and rebut evidence presented
against him; (c) a written notice of termination served on the employee indicating the upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify termination.

Rules state that two notices are required to guarantee due process in terminating employee, the
first, written notice that informs the employee of the particular acts for which his dismissal is
sought, and second, written notice which informs the employer’s decision to dismiss him.

P letters given to R show that there is no statement therein which gives respondents the chance to
refute the allegations. It only stated the conclusions drawn from alleged investigation of the
supposed infractions.

Wherefore, CA’s decision is affirmed.