St. Luke'S Medical Center v. Notario

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Decision1 dated September 21, 2001 and Resolution2 dated February 12, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Second Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 58808, entitled St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. and Robert Kuan, Chairman v. National Labor Relations Commission and Estrelito Notario, which affirmed the Resolutions dated January 19, 20003 and March 20, 20004 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Third Division, in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-02177-97. The NLRC Resolution dated January 19, 2000 reversed and set aside the Decision5 dated November 11, 1998 of the Labor Arbiter dismissing respondent's complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners, St.

Luke's Medical Center, Inc. and its Chairman, Robert Kuan, and ordered them to reinstate respondent to his former position, without loss of seniority rights and other benefits and full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement, and should reinstatement be no longer feasible, to further pay him separation pay equivalent to one (1) month's pay for every year of service, with the following monetary award, namely, backwages of ₱250,229.97 and separation pay of ₱31,365.00, or a total amount of ₱281,594.97. The antecedent facts are as follows: On June 23, 1995, St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. (petitioner hospital), located at Quezon City, employed respondent as In-House Security Guard.

In August 1996, Nimaya Electro Corporation installed a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system in the premises of petitioner hospital to enhance its security measures6 and conducted an orientation seminar for the in-house security personnel on the proper way of monitoring video cameras, subject to certain guidelines.7 On December 30, 1996, respondent was on duty from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. of the following day, December 31, 1996.

His work consisted mainly of monitoring the video cameras. In the evening of December 30, 1996, Justin Tibon, a foreigner from Majuro, Marshall Island, then attending to his 3-year-old daughter, Andanie De Brum, who was admitted since December 20, 1996 at room 257, cardiovascular unit of petitioner hospital, reported to the management of petitioner hospital about the loss of his mint green traveling bag, which was placed inside the cabinet, containing, among others, two (2) Continental Airlines tickets, two (2) passports, and some clothes. Acting on the complaint of Tibon, the Security Department of petitioner hospital conducted an investigation.

When the tapes of video camera recorder (VCR) no. 3 covering the subject period were reviewed, it was shown that the VCR was focused on camera no. 2 (Old Maternity Unit), from 2103H to 2215H [or 9:03 p.m.

to 10:15 p.m.] of December 30, 1996, and camera no. 1 (New Maternity Unit), from 0025H to 0600H [or 12:25 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.] of December 31, 1996.

The cameras failed to record any incident of theft at room 257. On January 6, 1997, petitioner hospital, through Abdul A. Karim, issued a Memorandum8 to respondent, the CCTV monitoring staff on duty, directing him to explain in writing, within 24 hours upon receipt thereof, why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for violating the normal rotation/sequencing process of the VCR and, consequently, failed to capture the theft of Tibon's traveling bag at room 257. In his letter9 dated January 6, 1997, respondent explained that on the subject dates, he was the only personnel on duty as nobody wanted to assist him.

Because of this, he decided to focus the cameras on the Old and New Maternity Units, as these two units have high incidence of crime.

Finding the written explanation of respondent to be unsatisfactory, petitioner hospital, through Calixton, served on respondent a copy of the Notice of Termination,10 dated January 24, 1997, dismissing him on the ground of gross negligence/inefficiency under Section 1, Rule VII of its Code of Discipline. Thus, on March 19, 1997, respondent filed a Complaint11 for illegal dismissal against petitioner hospital and its Chairman, Robert Kuan, seeking reinstatement with payment of full backwages from the time of his dismissal up to actual reinstatement, without of loss of seniority rights and other benefits. Petitioners countered that they validly dismissed respondent for gross negligence and observed due process before terminating his employment.

On November 11, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed respondent's complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners. He stated that a CCTV monitoring system is designed to focus on many areas in a programmed and sequential manner and should not to be focused only on a specific area, unless the situation requires it. He concluded that during respondent's duty from December 30 to 31, 1996, he was negligent in focusing the cameras at the Old and New Maternity Units only and, consequently, the theft committed at room 257 was not recorded.

He said that respondent's infraction exposed petitioners to the possibility of a damage suit that may be filed against them arising from the theft. On appeal by the respondent, the NLRC issued a Resolution dated January 19, 2000, reversing the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. It stated that petitioners failed to submit proof that there was an existing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the CCTV monitoring system, particularly on the focusing procedure.

It observed that respondent was not negligent when he focused the cameras on the Old and New Maternity Units, as they were located near the stairways and elevators, which were frequented by many visitors and, thus, there is the likelihood that untoward incidents may arise. If at all, it treated the matter as a single or isolated act of simple negligence which did not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of an employee. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated November 11, 1998 is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered ordering respondents-appellees to reinstate complainant-appellant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits, with full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement. Should reinstatement be no longer feasible, to further pay complainant-appellant separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service. As computed, complainant-appellant's monetary award as of this date of decision are as follows: Backwages …………….. ₱250,229.97 Separation Pay………… + 31,365.00