Rodriguez v. NLRC

MENDOZA, J.:

Private respondent Estela G. Gadian was hired on September 6, 1993 as an internal auditor by petitioner First Community Cooperative (FICCO). It appears that during the period from August to November 1997, private respondent took grocery items and other merchandise worth ~~P~~ 13,842.25 from the consumer store of FICCO. Three personnel of the consumer store, Norma Carton, Allan Pagara and Hamilcar Gabaca, executed a joint affidavit stating that private respondent took the goods in question without paying for them, and that she did not sign any grocery loan application nor instruct the cashier to deduct the cost of the goods from her salary.

On the basis of the affidavit, FICCO filed two cases against private respondent, one, an administrative case for grave misconduct, and another, a criminal case for qualified theft. In the administrative case, an investigation was conducted by a special investigating committee of FICCO on January 31, 1998. Private respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct and, on February 6, 1998, was dismissed from the company.

Hence, on February 13, 1998, private respondent filed before the Labor Arbiter's Office a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims and damages against herein petitioners, Antonio I. Rodriguez, Jr. and the Board of Directors of FICCO. Meanwhile, the City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City dismissed the case for qualified theft against private respondent on the ground that even after conducting an inventory of the goods in its consumer store from the period of August to November 1997, FICCO failed to report any loss due to theft or pilferage. On the other hand, the monthly payrolls of the company showed that the value of the goods taken by private respondent had been deducted from her monthly salary from August to November 1997.

The resolution of the City Prosecutor was affirmed by the Regional State Prosecutor and later by the Secretary of Justice. On November 27, 1998, the labor arbiter declared petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered the immediate reinstatement of private respondent to her former position without loss of seniority rights and the payment to her of backwages in the amount of ~~P~~ 440,804.10. The pertinent portions of his decision state: Considering complainant's dismissal was done with bad faith and considering further the anti-social manner complainant was terminated from her job, and the humiliation she suffered by reason of the unwarranted dismissal, which complainant elaborated during clarificatory hearing, the BRANCH deemed it necessary to award complainant moral damages in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand [Pesos] (~~P~~ 200,000.00).

To deter respondents from terminating their employees in the manner they have terminated complainant, an award of One Hundred Thousand [Pesos] (~~P~~ 100,000.00), as exemplary damages, shall likewise be granted to complainant. As prayed for, complainant shall be reimbursed of the litigation fee she incurred due to the filing of this case in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (~~P~~ 5,000.00). Inasmuch as complainant was forced to hire the services of a lawyer to protect her rights and interests, attorney's fees of not more than ten percent (10%) of the total amount awarded shall be accorded to complainant.

Accordingly, complainant's awarded monetary benefits are computed, hereunder: Backwages ~~P~~ 86,831.00 13th Month Pay 8,900.00 Moral damages 200,000.00 Exemplary damages 100,000.00 Subtotal