CALIFORNIA CLOTHING INC. and MICHELLE S.

YBAÑEZ, Petitioners
CASE TITLE: vs.
SHIRLEY G. QUIÑONEZ, Respondent
Date: October 23, 2013 G.R. Number: 17582
On July 25, 2001, respondent Shirley Quiñonez, a Ticketing Agent from Cebu
Pacfic went to Guess USA Boutique store at Robinson’s Mall, Lapu Lapu, Cebu
City. She purchased to items: a black jeans worth Php2,098.00 and an official
receipt from the store was issued to her.

The store, apparently accused her of not paying the said jeans and
confronted her at Cebu Pacific’s Office where the respondent is working. The
Guess employee also gave a letter to the Director of Cebu Pacific (refused to
receive it) and HRD of Robinson’s.
FACTS
The Petitioners and other defendants claimed that there was in fact an
issuance of Official Receipt to the respondent.

On June 20, 2003, the RTC decided to dismiss the case primarily because they
found that the evidence presented by the petitioners and other defendants
proved that they are in good faith and that they respondent failed to make
payment. RTC have decided as well that there was no damaging that
happened since the respondent was the one who chose for the venue of
discussion.

Whether or not the petitioners are in good faith when they did their internal
ISSUE
investigation against Quiñonez - NO

NO. Per CA, the respondent was indeed subjected to ridicule and humiliation
and other similar injury. The petitioner was proven (since they claimed) that
there was a miscommunication between their employees that leads to
issuance of official receipt. When they have found out that the total amount
of missing cash is equivalent to black jeans, the question now is whether
there was a malice when they have conducted their investigation. It was
proven that the petitioner was insisting that the respondent did not pay the
RULING
items considering that she has the official receipt. Moreover, the petitioner
not only went Quiñonez’s employer to inform about the incident but also to
inform them of the bad acts that was allegedly conducted by the respondent.

Since the above-mentioned case was in favor of Quiñonez, CA also ruled that
the respondent was entitled to an award of moral damages and attorney’s
fee.

Submitted By: Danielle Bill Salanio

Section: JD 102 – SY 2021-2022
Submitted to: Atty. Enee Abrenica – Orillosa
Subject: Persons and Family Relations