G.R. No.

203005 March 14, 2016

TABUK TULAY MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC (TAMPCO), JOSEPHINE DOCTOR,
AND WILLIAM BAO-ANGAN, Petitioners,
vs.
MAGDALENA DUCLAN, Respondent.

FACTS
Respondent Magdalena Duclan is employed as Cashier of respondent cooperative. The
cooperative is engaged in the business of obtaining investments from its members which are
lent out to qualified member-borrower.
In 2002, petitioner TAMPCO introduced Special Investment Loans (SIL) to its members
and prospective borrowers. The SIL adversely affected the cooperative’s ability to grant regular
loans to other members due to many SIL releases. The TAMPCO Board instructed
management to limit the grant of SIL to 5 Million Pesos. Despite Board action, SILs were still
granted over and above the ceiling set. This prompted the BOD to completely stop the grant of
SILs. However, despite the order, SILs were still granted. Eventually, the SIL grantees failed to
pay back their loans.
The petitioner suspended respondent and other cooperative officials while the
investigation was going on. Respondent admitted to the investigating committee that she and
her co-respondents approved and released the SIL.
The Board ordered the suspension of the respondent and directed her to collect within
the said period the unauthorized SIL releases she made, otherwise she would be terminated
from employment. Unable to collect, respondent was dismissed from employment.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. She argued that she had no discretion
in the release of the SILs as they were approved by the loan investigator, the Credit Committee,
and the General Manager. She claimed that she should be accorded clemency just as her co-
respondents were pardoned. She noted the General Manager who was allowed to retire, given
a graceful exit from the cooperative.
In their comment, petitioners contended that her position as cashier is the lifeblood and
very existence of the cooperative. They pointed out that respondent is responsible and
accountable for all disbursement because before the release of the loan, she must ensure that
all the processes and necessary documents are duly complied with and there are no violations
of any of the policies and rules. They contended that there is no favoritism or discrimination
when the General Manager was allowed a graceful exit while respondent was dismissed as it
was a management prerogative that respondent cannot interfere with. They further contended
that there is no basis to suppose that respondent was unfairly treated, since all those found
responsible for the SIL fiasco were dismissed from service after their respective cases were
individually considered.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not the management’s prerogative in treating respondent differently from the
General Manager is against the principles of fairness and justice.

RULING
No. The law protects both the welfare of employees and the prerogatives of
management on the discipline of employees, as long as they do not violate labor laws, collective
agreements if any, and general principles of fairness and justice. Management is not precluded
from condoning the infractions of its employees.
In the case at bar, as far as respondent is concerned, the cooperative chose not to
waive its right to discipline and punish her. It is a privilege of the latter as the holder of such
right. It cannot be said that the respondent was discriminated against or singled out, for among
all those indicted, only the General Manager was accorded leniency, the rest were treated on
equal footing. As to why the former General Manager was allowed to retire, this precisely falls
within the realm of management prerogative. What matters, as far as the Court is concerned, is
that respondent is not singled out and treated unfairly.

Page 1 of 1