Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SEVENTH DIVISION

BUENA M. CELIS and RICHARD CA-G.R. SP No. 161169

A. BARROS,
Petitioners, Members:

Bruselas, Jr., Chairman

- versus - Antonio-Valenzuela and
Acosta, JJ.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Promulgated:

COMMISSION (FIFTH 09 Sep 2019
DIVISION), WONDERFOODS, __________________
INC. and CAROLYN T. SY,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
Bruselas Jr., J:

Petitioners Buena M. Celis and Richard A. Barros filed the

herein petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, to invalidate, for having been
rendered with grave abuse of discretion, the Decision, the
dispositive of which, reads –

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant’s

appeal is PARTLY GRANTED.

Consequently, the decision rendered on 22 June 2018 by

Labor Arbiter Renell Joseph R. Dela Cruz is MODIFIED in that
respondent Wonderfoods, Inc. is ordered to pay complainants
Celis, Barros and Pabuayan, Jr. their proportionate service
incentive leave pay for 2017; and Fifteen Thousand Pesos
(P15,000.00 ) each as nominal damages for its failure to comply
with the requirements of procedural due process.

Further, Wonderfoods, Inc. is ordered to refund/return

the following amounts that were illegally deducted from their
wages (1) Celis – P3,350.80; (2) Barros – P1,072.74 and
Pabuayan, Jr. – P2,336.14 and to pay Celis her unpaid wages for
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 2

the period 31 March to 5 April 2017

Except as modified above, the rest of the judgment

appealed from is AFFIRMED.

Attached is the computation of the judgment award

which shall be a part of this decision.

SO ORDERED.”

Antecedents

The facts of the case as found by the National Labor

Relations Commission (NLRC) are as follows:

"Records show that on 11 July 2017, a complaint for

illegal dismissal; nonpayment of salaries/wages, service
incentive leave, and separation pay; illegal deduction (uniform,
IDs, bags, apron, hairnet, face mask); and issuance of certificate
of employment was filed.

In their position paper, complainants cited the following

circumstances of their employment by respondent
Wonderfoods, Inc. (Wonderfoods)

NAME DATE HIRED POSITION DAILY WAGE

RATE
Buena M. Celis 17 Dec. 2007 Inventory Clerk P474.00
Richard A. Sept. 2004 Cook P485.00
Barros
Presco Sept. 2008 Cook P488.00
Pabuayan, Jr.

In their different capacities, complainants were tasked to

account for the meat stocks in Wonderfoods store. In case of
variance in the meat stocks, the same was charged or deducted
from their salaries every pay day as miscellaneous as bared by
their respective pay slips.

Celis was not the only one given said responsibility

because of the stores shifting schedule (i.e., opening and closing
shifts). Accordingly, what she and Pabuayan, Jr. handled was
only the meat stocks turned over to them. Celis inventory
thereof would be based on the stocks passed on to her. When
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 3

Celis inquired from respondent about the mentioned

deduction, the latter failed to give any explanation. Other
unauthorized deductions from complainants salaries included
expenses for the company identification card, LBR, and
uniform. On the same day, she was informed of her preventive
suspension from 10 April to 10 May 2017 on the ground of
alleged pilferage based on the variance for February 2017. She
was not given a copy of the inventory reflecting such variance
and an opportunity to explain what was missing therein. On 8
May 2017, when she reported to respondent, she received a
Notice of Termination.

As to Barros, he was shocked when he was informed that

he would be placed under preventive suspension on the same
ground because, at that time, he was already suspended for his
accumulated tardiness (three [3] months) and he was about to
report for duty. Also, the preventive suspension was doubtful
because the variance subject of the alleged pilferage was
incurred in February 2017 during which period he was already
serving his suspension. On 24 May 2017, he received a Notice of
Termination for pilferage.

With regard to Pabuayan, Jr., he was also shocked when

he was apprised of his preventive suspension from 10 April to
10 May 2017 on the same ground of pilferage. He received his
Notice of Termination on 8 May 2017.

Complainants asseverated that their dismissal was illegal

since there was no just cause therefor. In addition, respondents
failed to comply with procedural due process. There was no
written notice to explain (NTE) served on complainants. The
Notice of Preventive Suspension stated that the NTE was
served on 10 April 2016 [sic] and on the same day, an
administrative hearing was conducted. Since there was no NTE
served on them, they were not able to answer point by point the
infraction imputed to them. Hence, complainants right to be
heard was violated. Too, on even date, after the administrative
hearing, the Notice of Preventive Suspension was served on
complainants.

Further, complainants asserted that they were unpaid of

their service incentive leave pay (SILP) and proportionate 13
month pay covering the period January 2017 until their illegal
dismissal. Celis was also unpaid of her last pay for the period
20 March to 5 April 2017. As well, complainants questioned as
illegal the unauthorized deduction made on their salaries.
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 4

Furthermore, complainants claimed entitlement to moral

and exemplary damages since the illegal deductions made by
respondents were oppressive to labor; and to attorney’s fees.

Respondents, for their part, averred that complainants

worked at Wonderfoods' Sizzling Plate outlet in SM Bacoor in
Cavite. On 6 April 2017, a spot audit was conducted in said
outlet which revealed questionable variances in its stocks.
Resultantly, a thorough audit followed indicating that as of 1 to
28 February 2017, the outlet had a total variance amounting to
P26,657.00 in unaccounted stocks comprising of food and
dining supplies.

On 10 April 2017, Celis and Pabuayan, Jr. were invited

for an administrative investigation in the head office of
Wonderfoods. Thereat, said Complainants were issued their
respective NTE wherein they were charged with pilferage
under Article 4.1.4 of the company’s rules and regulations but
they refused receipt thereof. During the investigation, they,
however, denied the charges against them and wrote their
explanations. After the investigation, they were each served
with a copy of the notice of 30-day preventive suspension,
which they again declined to receive.

On 17 April 2017, Barros’ turn to be investigated in

Wonderfoods office came. During the investigation, he was
informed of the charge of pilferage against him under the
aforementioned rules and regulations. He denied the same and
wrote his explanation thereon. Too, Wonderfoods obtained
written statements of Esperanza Mascardo (Mascardo) and
Crisanto O. Galan (Galan), staff in the outlet, who both stated,
among others, that complainants were in connivance in stealing
food and other stocks therein. Galan also executed an affidavit
(Sinumpaang Salaysay) to confirm and attest to his earler written
statement.

After evaluation of the evidence (i.e., the audit report),

complainants respective written explanations and the statement
of witnesses Mascardo and Galan), Wonderfoods decided to
dismiss complainants in separate notices of termination that
were essentially similarly worded, thus:

'After thorough investigation of the incident

and review of submitted evidences such as audit
report, statement from the witnesses, and as per the
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 5

administrative hearing conducted last 10 April

2017, it is evident (sic) that you are guilty in
violating the Company Rules and Regulations to
wit:

Article 4.1.4 - Pilferage in any form

Penalty: First Offense – Dismissal

Your position as an Inventory Clerk requires

a great responsibility in monitoring your
production and stocks hence it is impossible that
you are not aware nor have noticed the big
discrepancy in the outlet as you claimed during the
administrative investigation.

The company was able to gather detailed

and specific information on how you were able to
execute the illicit activity in the store which resulted
to a considerable variance in sales and inventory
amounting to P6,657.00.

In this regard, this is to inform you that we

are ending your employment with Wonderfoods
Inc. -Sizzling Plate effective May 11, 2017.'

Due to the criminal acts of complainants, Wonderfoods

also filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft against them
with the prosecutors office of Bacoor, Cavite.

Respondents argued that complainant’s dismissal was

valid since their criminal act of stealing company property
(food and other stocks) was tantamount to serious misconduct
and willful breach of the trust reposed in them by
Wonderfoods, which are just causes for termination of
employment under Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor
Code. Besides this, complainants were given the chance to
explain their side and rebut the charges against them in an
administrative investigation.

On the money claims, respondents asserted that at the

time of complainants termination, Wonderfoods had paid them
all the amounts due them by way of wages, SILP, 13th month
pay and other compensations arising out of their employment.

In their reply, complainants assailed as dubious and

 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 6

fabricated the audit report (Variance Summary of Product

Status Report) based on the spot auditing concluded on 6 April
2016. Relevantly, they pointed out that respondents concluded
said audit in their absence, without their knowledge and the
audit report was not authenticated by the auditor and did not
bear the signatures of complainants. Respondents also failed to
present the affidavit of witnesses to attest to the veracity of the
audit. Hence, such report should not be given any value and
must be considered a mere scrap of paper.

Further, complainants questioned how respondents were

able to figure out the variance quantities for February 2017
when the actual audit was conducted on 9 April 2017. The items
and quantities listed in the month of February 2017 were no
longer physically present in April 2017. The only way to get the
figures for February 2017 was to work backwards using the
stock card record or balance sheet of the items wherein the
latest actual inventory count should be used as reference point.
Whenever there is a variance between the record and the actual
physical count, the figures that will come out for the earlier
dates are no longer the true reflection of the physical presence
of the items for that period. Thus, the inventory count sheet
adduced by respondents was doubtful as to its authenticity and
accuracy.

Complainants added that on 8 April 2017, Wonderfoods

Human Resource Department invited them to its office without
first giving them an NTE. Initially, Respondent interrogated
them on the alleged variances in the stocks. The latter denied
the charges against them and reduced it to writing.
Additionally, they were threatened to be dismissed from
employment if they would not admit the accusations against
them. Complainants, nonetheless, maintained that they did not
steal the alleged meat stocks in the store. Thereafter, respondent
gave them the NTE which they refused to receive.

Moreover, complainants put forth that Galan’s written

statement should not be given any weight because he was
forced by Wonderfoods to testify in its favor as shown by his
subsequent statement disproving all his prior allegations
against them.

Respondents, for their part, insisted that complainants

were validly dismissed for cause and were afforded due
process, and that they had been paid of their money claims.
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 7

In a motion, respondents sought the admission of

Galan’s affidavit purportedly establishing that complainants
falsified Galan’s written statement attached to their
(complainants) position paper and forged his signature therein.
They stressed that Galan never wrote a statement retracting his
assertion in his earlier affidavit that complainants stole food
stocks in Wonderfoods Sizzling Plate outlet in SM Bacoor. It
was for this reason that he executed the affidavit sought to be
admitted. In his latest affidavit, Galan also averred that he was
contemplating filing charges against complainants for
falsification.

In the assailed decision, the Labor Arbiter upheld the

validity of complainant’s dismissal on the ground of loss of
trust and confidence. In so ruling, he opined that the
discrepancy in the inventory were adequately proven by the
audit undertaken by Wonderfoods. There was no reason to
doubt its accuracy which was not disputed by the
complainants. Too, the discrepancies were explained by the
statements of Mascardo and Galan who were in a position to
personally witness complainants modus operandi and whose
testimonies were not shown to have been procured by fraud,
duress or other improper motives. The Labor Arbiter added
that complainant’s failure to submit their own evidence and to
rebut Wonderfoods evidence was fatal to their cause.

In dismissing the money claims, the Labor Arbiter noted

that respondents presented documentary evidence of payment
thereof. Conversely, complainants failed to submit
countervailing evidence, including bank statement of their
payroll accounts that would have shown whether the payments
asserted by Wonderfoods were actually credited to their payroll
accounts. Such failure to submit rebuttal evidence defeated the
claim of non-payment.”

Labor Arbiter's Decision

In his Decision, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for

lack of merit. The labor arbiter underscored that the charge of
pilferage against petitioners involved loss of trust of confidence,
which is a valid ground for dismissing an employee. The labor
arbiter noted that petitioners were holding positions of trust and
confidence considering that their functions involved the
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 8

inventory of stock items. They also had physical access to the

stock and were tasked to keep an accurate accounting. According
to the labor arbiter, the loss of such trust and confidence was
justified by the discrepancy in the inventory as proven by the
result of the audit undertaken by the company.

On the issue of money claims, the labor arbiter gave

credence to the presented documentary evidence of payment of
the claimed accounts. The labor arbiter also found that the failure
of the petitioners to submit rebuttal evidence defeated their claim
of non-payment.

Proceedings at the NLRC

The petitioners appealed to the NLRC.

On 31 December 2018, the NLRC partly granted the

petitioners' appeal. While the NLRC upheld the ruling of the
labor arbiter that the dismissal of the petitioners was justified, it,
however, found that private respondents failed to comply with
the requirements of due process.

The NLRC resolved that the petitioners are not entitled to

reinstatement (or separation pay in lieu thereof) and backwages
having been dismissed for a cause. According to the NLRC, the
private respondents were able to establish clearly and
convincingly the basis for their loss of trust and confidence to the
complainants.

Anent the procedural aspect, the NLRC noted that the

private respondents failed to comply with the requirements of
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 9

due process as the petitioners were not afforded a reasonable

opportunity to submit their written explanations, consult a lawyer
and gather data and evidence. The NLRC, however, ruled that the
lack of due process does not render the dismissal of the
petitioners ineffective but merely gives rise to the payment of
nominal damages in their favor.

As to the monetary claims, the NLRC held that the

petitioners are entitled to be paid their proportionate service
incentive leave pay (SILP). The NLRC also held that the
petitioners are entitled to the refund of the unauthorized
deductions made by the private respondents because the latter
failed to provide any justification therefor and to show that the
deductions were permitted under the Labor Code. Lastly, the
NLRC held that petitioner Celis is entitled to the payment of her
unpaid salaries for the period of 31 March to 05 April 2017.

The Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners moved to reconsider the decision of the

NLRC but their motion was denied. Hence, the instant petition
for certiorari.

The petitioners contend that the NLRC committed grave

abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it rendered its decision. The petitioners allege that the
decision is contrary to facts, laws, and applicable jurisprudence;
without regard to the evidence and overall circumstances of the
case; and in violation of their rights under the Labor Code. The
petitioners further allege that the private respondents failed to
prove that the they have committed acts, omissions or
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 10

concealment that would effectively justify their dismissal based

on loss of trust and confidence. The petitioners also contend that
the NLRC failed to discuss the circumstances that allegedly led to
the loss of trust and confidence in them.

We find the petition to be bereft of merit.

As can be gleaned from the foregoing recitals, substantial

evidence permeate the decisions of the lower, labor tribunals.
The conclusions and inferences reached, find support from the
evidence submitted. No gross, arbitrary misreading of the
evidence can be detected.

In our view, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the

NLRC's decision had been attended with grave abuse of
discretion. All the grounds raised by the petitioners to support
their present petition pertain to a determination of factual matters
which would require us to inquire into the correctness of the
evaluation of the evidence made by the NLRC. Such an
examination, however, may not be carried out in a petition for
certiorari. As held by the Supreme Court in Fuji Television Network,
Inc. vs Arlene Espiritu:1

“A petition for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is

"available only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases" and that
its sole office "is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including
commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction." A petition for certiorari does not include a review of
findings of fact since the findings of the National Labor Relations
Commission are accorded finality. In cases where the aggrieved party
assails the National Labor Relations Commission’s findings, he or she
must be able to show that the Commission "acted capriciously and
whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the
controversy."
1 G.R. No. 204944-45, 3 December 2014, citing Odango v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147420, June 10,
2004, 431 SCRA 633.
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 11

We must remember that “grave abuse of discretion”, in a

special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, means such
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent
to lack of jurisdiction. To justify the issuance of the writ of
certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in
contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without
jurisdiction. Further, far from being contrary to law or prevailing
jurisprudence, the LA's and the NLRC's conclusions were arrived
at after the requisite determination of the surrounding facts and
the prevailing law; much less has the respondent Commission
exercised its power arbitrarily or despotically, by reason of
passion, prejudice or personal hostility.2

Where there is a concurrence of both the NLRC's and labor

arbiter's decisions, courts ought to be more prudent in the
exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction in order to allow greater
stability in the market place because, after all, labor law and
policy mandate speedy, efficient and effective resolution of
employer-employee controversies by specialized labor tribunals
who have expertise on the matter and whose decisions must, as
much as possible, carry finality.

In consonance with the policy of the law on speedy

disposition of labor cases, the Court no longer required the filing
of a comment to the petition because, aside from the fact that it is

2 Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 155306, 28 August 2013.
 CA-G.R. SP No.161169
Resolution
page 12

not mandatory on the part of the Court to require the filing of the
same, the herein petitioners having failed in their duty to
demonstrate, prima facie, with definiteness the grave abuse of
discretion that would justify the proper availment of a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Original Signed
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Original Signed
NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice

Original Signed
LOUIS P. ACOSTA
Associate Justice