Lores Realty Enterprises v. Pacia

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc. (LREI) and Lorenzo Y. Sumulong III (Sumulong) seeking to reverse and set aside the November 25, 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) , in CA-G.R. SP No. 59975, which affirmed the Decision2 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) , The Facts In 1982, respondent Virginia E. Pacia (Pacia) was hired by LREI. At the time of her dismissal, she was the assistant manager and officer-in-charge of LREI's Accounting Department under the Finance Administrative Division. On October 28, 1998, LREI's acting general manager, petitioner Sumulong, through Ms. Julie Ontal, directed Pacia to prepare Check Voucher No. 16477 worth ₱150,000.00 as partial payment for LREI's outstanding obligation to the Bank of the Philippine Islands-Family Bank (BPI-FB).

Pacia did not immediately comply with the instruction. After two repeated directives, Pacia eventually prepared Check No. 0000737526 in the amount of ₱150,000.00. Later, Sumulong again directed Pacia to prepare Check Voucher No. 16478 in the amount of ₱175,000.00 to settle the balance of LREI's outstanding indebtedness with BPI-FB.

Pacia once again was slow in obeying the order. Due to the insistence of Sumulong, however, Pacia eventually prepared Check No. 0000737527 in the amount of ₱175,000.00. To explain her refusal to immediately follow the directive, Pacia reasoned out that the funds in LREI's account were not sufficient to cover the amounts to be indicated in the checks.

The next day, October 29, 1998, Sumulong issued a memorandum3 ordering Pacia to explain in writing why she refused to follow a clear and lawful directive. On the same day, Pacia replied in writing and explained that her initial refusal to prepare the checks was due to the unavailability of funds to cover the amounts and that she only wanted to protect LREI from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law.4 On November 6, 1998, Pacia received a notice of termination5 stating, among others, that she was being dismissed because of her willful disobedience and their loss of trust and confidence in her. Pacia then filed a Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice due to Harassment, Constructive Dismissal, Moral and Exemplary Damages6 against LREI and Sumulong.

Subsequently, Pacia filed an Amended Complaint7 to include the charges of illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries. On March 11, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision8 finding that the dismissal of Pacia was for a just and valid cause but ordering payment of what was due her. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows: 1. Ordering respondent corporation to pay complainant her: a. unpaid salary ₱12,550.00 b. proportionate 13th month pay 20,916.66