Aldeguer & Co., Inc./Loalde Boutique v.

Honeyline Tomboc
G.R. No. 147633 – July 28, 2008
J. Carpio-Morales

Topic: Security of Tenure and Termination of Employment

Doctrine:

Petitioner: Aldeguer & Co. Inc./Loalde Boutique

Respondent: Honeyline Tomboc

Case Summary: In 1993, the Petitioners engaged in retail and wholesale of Loalde products, and hired
Honeyline. In 1996, the Petitioner promoted respondent as OIC of the branch in Ayala Center, Cebu City.
After conducting an audit of the branch, Petitioner concluded that respondent misappropriated Php 28,137,
which is a just cause for termination under Art. 282 of the LC – and she was notified on May 24, 1997 of the
termination effective June 24, 1997. Honeyline filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal salary
deductions, non-payment of 13th month pay, damages, etc. In Honeyline’s position paper she stated that she
was cleared on May 19, 1997 of all responsibilities. She then went on leave the following day and when she
went back on Maay 24, she was informed that she was no longer allowed to enter the premises.

Issue: W/N Honeyline was dismissed for just cause – YES

Held: willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative.” Nerita’s affidavit and audit report are corroborated by the Petitioner’s Solidbank passbook
showing that the unaccounted amounts were not deposited in the account. Jinky’s and Kay’s affidavit that
although they were the cashiers, it was Honeyline whheld certain amounts in question and were supposed to
deposit them to Solidbank, but were not deposited until the next banking day. Honeyline contends that the
LA and NLRC ignored the Memo issued by Petitioner indicating her duties which did NOT include
handling cash collection of sales and making deposits with the bank. The SC stated that it has been
established that the boutique-in-charge is not ordinarily allowed to handle cashiering, she may do so,
however, if the need arises. At any rate, Jinky, and other affiants stated in their affidavits that Honeyline
interfered with the cashiering tasks, in violation of company policy

On Honeyline’s claim that the petitioner framed her up in retaliation for refusal to sign a voucher showing
receipt of payment of wage differentials  The copy of the voucher actually shows that she did, in fact, sign
it.

The SC finds that the respondent’s employment was terminated for just cause. HOWEVER, Petitioner
failed to observe the requirements of procedural due process. For termination to be in line with due process,
there is a two notice requirement that must be in written form. o The CA correctly found that instead of
complying with the (2) written notice requirements, Petitioner, in one single notice, ordered Honeyline’s
dismissal. Such single notice does not comply with the law. Petitioner argues that “respondent was
termination not only for the offenses she committed in May 1997, but also for other offenses particularly
those committed in February 1997 for which she was already required to explain in writing. This argument
fails. The first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the
charges, and if proven, will result to his/her dismissal. Such notice must not only contain a plain statement
of the charges of malfeasance or misfeasance, but must categorically state the effect on his employment if
the charges are proven to be true. This notice will afford employee an opportunity to avail of all defenses
and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and
limb, his employment.

Because the dismissal was not compliant with due process, then Honeyline is entitled to indemnity in the
form of nominal damages worth 30,000.
Facts:
 In 1993, the Petitioners engaged in retail and wholesale of Loalde products, and hired Honeyline (the
Respondent)
o 1996, the Petitioner promoted respondent as OIC of the branch in Ayala Center, Cebu City
 Responsibilities included: (1) monitoring of daily inventory status; (2) coordinate
with area manager regarding stock, maintenance, customer issues, etc.; (3) Supervise
sales staff; (4) Implement company rules; (5) as per internal control the OIC is not
allowed to handle cashiering except in emergency cases which must have prior
approval by management. Keyholding of the cash drawer is the responsibility of
the cashier
 After conducting an audit of the branch, Petitioner concluded that respondent misappropriated Php
28,137, which is a just cause for termination under Art. 282 of the LC – and she was notified on May
24, 1997 of the termination effective June 24, 1997
o Honeyline filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal salary deductions, non-payment of
13th month pay, damages, etc.
 In Honeyline’s position paper she stated that she was cleared on May 19, 1997 of all
responsibilities. She then went on leave the following day and when she went back
on Maay 24, she was informed that she was no longer allowed to enter the premises.
 February 5, 1998: Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the Petitioners
o It is policy to require a boutique-in-charge to conduct a “cash count … every end of the day
or first hour the following day after her day off and any collection for the day must be
deposited without fail on the succeeding banking day
o The evidence revealed that on May 19, 1997, Nenita audited the sales of Loalde Ayala
discovered several dates where there were undeposited cash sales
 When Honeyline was asked to explain, she claimed that the amounts were all
“deposits-in-transit”, meaning the bank had already picked up the amounts but had
not yet returned the validated deposit slip
 The passbooks, however, did not reflect said amounts
 A proper investigation showed that there were no cash deposits for the
amounts in question
o Petitioners further claimed that Honeyline did not return on May 24, the supposed date she
should have showed up, hence the issuance of the notice of dismissal.
 The petitioners further stated that the 28k was not the only irregularity in
Honeyline’s work. There were past irregularities including a cash shortage of Php 46,
492, and when made to account for the amount, she claimed that a representative
from Solidbank Mandaue picked up the amount – the bank denied the claim
 Another irregularity: In April of 1997, Honeyline instructed an employee to issue
antedated official receipts for different amounts to cover amounts which the
company should have received on dates that were being traced by the head office
 On another occasion, Honeyline falsified the signature of a bank teller
 NLRC upheld Labor Arbiter decision
 CA reversed the decision and concluded that Honeyline was illegally dismissed – In reversing the
NLRC decision, the CA found that the LA committed GAD when it admitted Petitioner’s position
paper even if submitted almost 2 months late; in addition, Paper was unverified, and Respondent was
not furnished a copy

Issues + Held:
1. W/N Honeyline was illegally dismissed – NO (But read full explanation)
 The Petitioner has shown just cause for termination under Art. 282 on the ground of “fraud or willful
breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.”
o Nerita’s affidavit and audit report are corroborated by the Petitioner’s Solidbank passbook
showing that the unaccounted amounts were not deposited in the account
 o Jinky’s and Kay’s affidavit that although they were the cashiers, it was Honeyline who held
certain amounts in question and were supposed to deposit them to Solidbank, but were not
deposited until the next banking day
 Honeyline contends that the LA and NLRC ignored the Memo issued by Petitioner indicating her
duties which did NOT include handling cash collection of sales and making deposits with the bank
o SC: It has been established that the boutique-in-charge is not ordinarily allowed to handle
cashiering, she may do so, however, if the need arises.
 At any rate, Jinky, and other affiants stated in their affidavits that Honeyline
interfered with the cashiering tasks, in violation of company policy
 On Honeyline’s claim that the petitioner framed her up in retaliation for refusal to sign a voucher
showing receipt of payment of wage differentials  The copy of the voucher actually shows that she
did, in fact, sign it
 The SC finds that the respondent’s employment was terminated for just cause. HOWEVER,
Petitioner failed to observe the requirements of procedural due process
o Book VI of the Labor Code requires the following in the termination of employment based on
just causes as defined in Article 282 of the LC :
 (i) A written notice on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for
termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity to which to explain his
side;
 (ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge,
present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against him
 (iii) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due
consideration of the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his
termination
o The CA correctly found that instead of complying with the (2) written notice requirements,
Petitioner, in one single notice, ordered Honeyline’s dismissal
 Such single notice does not comply with the law
o Petitioner argues that “respondent was termination not only for the offenses she committed in
May 1997, but also for other offenses particularly those committed in February 1997 for
which she was already required to explain in writing
 This argument fails.
 The first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will
be conducted on the charges, and if proven, will result to his/her dismissal.
Such notice must not only contain a plain statement of the charges of
malfeasance or misfeasance, but must categorically state the effect on
his employment if the charges are proven to be true
 This notice will afford employee an opportunity to avail of all
defenses and exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled
against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb, his
employment.
 Petitioner having failed to comply with the first notice requirement, respondent is
entitled to indemnity in the form of nominal damages
Ruling: CA DECISION REVERSED. Decision of NLRC is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION.