Etcuban v. Sulpicio Lines

SR., J.:

The stakes are high in a position imbued with trust, and for petitioner Vicente C. Etcuban, Jr., the loss of trust in him by his employer cost him his job after 16 years of service. He cries that the penalty was too harsh for an unproved and petty infraction. Upon the other hand, his employer avers that it acted well within its rights in terminating the petitioner's services after the investigation revealed that the latter failed to live up to the trust and confidence expected of him as Chief Purser.

The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) agreed with the petitioner, while the Court of Appeals ruled for the employer. The Antecedents Respondent Sulpicio Lines, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the business domestic shipping. Among its fleet of inter-island vessels was the M/V Surigao Princess, plying the Cebu-Cagayan de Oro-Jagna-Bohol route.1 The petitioner was employed by the respondent on January 30, 1978 until his dismissal on June 10, 1994 for loss of trust and confidence.2 At the time of his dismissal, the petitioner was the Chief Purser of the M/V Surigao Princess receiving a monthly salary of ₱5,000.00.3 As the Chief Purser, the petitioner handled the funds of the vessel and was the custodian of all the passage tickets and bills of lading.4 It was his responsibility, among other things, to issue passage tickets and to receive payments from the customers of the respondent, as well as to issue the corresponding official receipts therefor.5 He was also tasked to disburse the salaries of the crewmen of the vessel.6 Sometime in the last week of May 1994, the newly designated jefe de viaje 7 of the M/V Surigao Princess, in a surprise examination, discovered that several yellow passenger's duplicate original8 of yet to be sold or unissued passage tickets already contained the amount of ₱88.00 - the fare for adult passengers for the Cagayan de Oro to Jagna, Bohol route.

He noticed that three other original copies which made up the full set did not bear the same impression, although they were supposed to have been prepared at the same time. Acting on what appeared to be a strong evidence of short-changing the company, the jefe de viaje dug deeper on what he uncovered. As expected, he found inordinate amount of ticket issuances for children at half the fare of ₱44.00 in Voyage 434 of the vessel.9 When word of the anomaly reached the respondent, it waited for the petitioner to return to Cebu City in the hope of shedding more light on the matter.

On May 30, 1994, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Surigao Princess at the port of Cebu, the petitioner received a memorandum of even date from Personnel Officer Artemio F. Añiga relative to the irregularity in the "alleged involvement in anomaly of ticket issuance," instructing him to forthwith report to the main office and to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be meted on him or to submit himself to an investigation. The memorandum warned the petitioner that his failure to comply with the aforementioned instructions would be construed as a waiver of his right to be heard.

It also informed the petitioner of his immediate preventive suspension until further notice.10 The petitioner, however, refused to acknowledge receipt of the memorandum which was personally served on him,11 prompting the respondent to mail the same, and which the petitioner received days later.12 Meanwhile, upon his arrival at the office, the petitioner was questioned by Mr. Carlo S. Go, Senior Executive Vice-President and General Manager of respondent. Thereafter, petitioner was preliminarily investigated by Mr.

Añiga wherein his statements were taken down.13 After the initial investigation, the petitioner was told to sign its minutes but he adamantly refused, claiming the same to be "self-incriminatory."14 The next day, the petitioner was replaced by Mr. Felix Almonicar as the Chief Purser of the M/V Surigao Princess.15 As a result of his replacement, the petitioner thought he was fired from his job. Barely a week after the petitioner's preventive suspension and pending his administrative investigation, he filed a complaint against the respondent for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, 13th month pay and other monetary benefits with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII, Cebu City. The case was docketed as NLRC No. RAB-VII-06-0607-84.

The petitioner alleged that the ground for his dismissal, i.e., loss of trust and confidence, was ill-motivated and without factual basis. He did not deny that the anomalous tickets were in his possession, but denied that he was guilty of any wrongdoing. He dismissed the handwriting on the tickets as his, and claimed that he was singled out for the dismissal.

He averred that the "trumped-up" charge was a clever scheme resorted to by his employer so it could avoid paying him monetary benefits, considering that he was with the company for more than sixteen (16) years. He argued that assuming that it was he who wrote those entries in the tickets, the fact remains that they were still unissued; hence, no money went to his pocket and no material prejudice was caused to the respondent.

According to the petitioner, he would not jeopardize his livelihood for something as miniscule as ₱88.00. He prayed not for reinstatement but for separation pay, monetary benefits plus damages.16 On June 9, 1994, the respondent received its summons.17 Short of pre-empting its administrative investigation, coupled with the petitioner's obstinate refusal to submit to further investigation, the respondent decided to terminate the petitioner's employment for loss of trust and confidence in connection with passage tickets nos. 636742-636748.18 A copy of the notice of termination19 dated June 10, 1994 was sent by mail to the petitioner.

After hearing on the merits, Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon rendered his Decision dated March 13, 1995, finding the petitioner's dismissal illegal. He ruled that the respondent failed to substantiate and prove that the petitioner committed any wrongdoing. He found the evidence of impression on the tickets inadequate, considering that the petitioner was not the only person in the vessel handling or issuing the passage tickets.

According to the Labor Arbiter, the anomalous entries on the unissued tickets could not be attributed entirely to the petitioner; thus, there was no reason for the respondent to lose its trust and confidence on the petitioner.20 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent Sulpicio Lines, Inc., to pay the complainant Vicente C. Etcuban, Jr. the following : 1. Separation pay ₱80,480.00 2. Backwages 40,703.23 3. Proportionate 13th Month Pay 2,235.50