Facts
Bance, Dimaiwat, Velasco, Aguirre, and Lobetania (collectively, petitioners) filed complaints for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondents University of St. Anthony and Atty. Ortega, Jr. (collectively, respondents). Atty. Ortega is the President and the Chairman of the University’s Board of Trustees. Petitioners were regular employees of the University.
In June 2006, several irregular and anomalous transactions were noted in the University’s Accounting Office. The audit report revealed a cash shortage of P1,239,856.25. The cash should have been kept inside the cash vault under the custody of Lobetania but it was missing. During her conference with Atty. Ortega, Lobetania admitted that she failed to deposit the amount in the University’s bank account. Upon demand to return the amount, Lobetania paid it in installments out of her personal funds as evidenced by official receipts issued by the University under her name. Eventually, she tendered her resignation and was approved. Subsequently, the University filed criminal cases for Estafa against Lobetania.
At around the same period, Bance, Dimaiwat, and Aguirre were found to have taken advantage of their positions in the Accounting Office by enrolling their children and relatives, including Velasco’s, under the University’s group enrollment incentive program despite knowing that they were unqualified. Upon discovery of the fraudulent scheme in November 2007, Atty. Ortega immediately ordered an investigation and called a conference with the alleged perpetrators.
During the December 2007 conference, petitioners (excluding Lobetania) were apprised of the infractions they committed. During the conference, they admitted that their children and relatives indeed benefitted from the unauthorized discounts. Atty. Ortega issued a Memo, informing them that their employment will be terminated effective January 1, 2008 on grounds of dishonesty amounting to malversation of school funds. The office memo was allegedly not preceded by any written notice to petitioners except for the two conferences and a verbal announcement during the second conference.
Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre opted to resign. They tendered their resignation and these were approved by Atty. Ortega. Bance did not tender her resignation. Subsequently, the University filed several criminal cases for Estafa against Bance, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre.
Thereafter, petitioners filed their respective complaints for illegal dismissal with money claims against the respondents. Petitioners contended that their dismissal was illegal for lack of just or authorized causes and non-observance of the requirements of procedural due process. Lobetania, for her part, stated that there was no missing money as the P1,239,856.25 she allegedly pilfered was actually used by Mrs. Ortega to pay off loans. She was only forced to pay the amount from her personal funds, as evidenced by official receipts issued by the University under her name, because of the threats issued by Atty. Ortega. Petitioners prayed for reinstatement, and payment of money claims, moral, nominal, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
On the other hand, in their two separate Position Papers, respondents contended that petitioners’ (except Bance) resignation rendered the complaints for illegal dismissal without basis. Respondents added that, in any event, petitioners’ (including Bance) dismissals were for a just cause (i.e., willful breach of trust and fraud) based on the acts that they committed during their employment as shown by the result of the investigation and audits.
ISSUES:
- Whether petitioners’ (except Bance) voluntary resignation render their complaints for illegal dismissal without basis.
- Whether Bance was illegally dismissed.
Ruling
1. YES. For resignation from employment to be valid, there must be an intent to relinquish the position together with the overt act of relinquishment. Resignation must be voluntary. In illegal dismissal cases, the employer, if defense of resignation is presented, must show that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned.
In the instant case, the fact of petitioners’ resignation is undisputed. Lobetania tendered her resignation on July 27, 2007, and was approved by Atty. Ortega on August 9, 2007. Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre tendered their resignation on December 22, 2007, and these were approved by Atty. Ortega on December 26, 2007. In examining the totality of circumstances, respondents showed that Lobetania, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre voluntarily resigned prior to the effectivity date of the termination of their employment. Likewise, “it is settled that there is nothing reprehensible or illegal when the employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save face rather than smear the latter’s employment record.” Thus, because of the voluntary resignations of Lobetania, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre prior to the termination of their employment, their complaints for illegal dismissal have no basis.
Even if we disregard their voluntary resignation, this Court agrees with the CA that Lobetania, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre were dismissed for just causes. Lobetania’s failure to remit and deposit the University’s funds to its bank account amounted to a willful breach of trust. As to Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre, their collective act of taking undue advantage of the University’s group enrollment incentive program despite knowledge that their children and relatives were unqualified amounted to fraud and dishonesty.
2. YES. She willfully breached the trust that the University has reposed on her. Bance’s act of accommodating into the University’s group enrollment incentive program unqualified beneficiaries, including the children and relatives of the petitioners, constitute willful breach of trust. As stated, to constitute willful breach of trust, the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and there must be a willful act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. In Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., this Court ruled that a supervisory position is considered a position of trust because of the high degree of honesty and responsibility required and expected of the employee as compared with ordinary rank and file employees.
Hence, Bance’s position as Senior Accounts Officer, being supervisory in nature, can be considered as a position of trust. The investigation conducted by respondents showed that Bance (with Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre) participated in the scheme in the incentive program by enrolling unqualified beneficiaries. Likewise, as confirmed by the CA, Bance admitted during a conference with Atty. Ortega and other petitioners that her children or relatives (as the case may be) benefitted from the unauthorized discounts. By her admission, Bance’s act was willful. Such constitutes willful breach of the trust that the University has reposed on her.
Having been dismissed for a just cause, it follows that Bance is not entitled to backwages and other money claims arising from an illegal dismissal.
The Court, however, does not agree with the CA on its ruling on the aspect of procedural due process. As discussed above, to comply with the requirement of procedural due process, two written notices must be issued. The first written notice should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against the employee. The second written notice contains the decision terminating the employment after considering all circumstances involving the charge.
Records show that during the events leading to Bance’s dismissal, two conferences were held, after which, a Memo was issued to inform her (and Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre) of the termination of her employment effective January 1, 2008. Clearly, these are not compliant with the requirements established by law. Applying Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, Bance is therefore entitled to nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00.