(P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. vs. Flordeliz Velayo, G.R. No. 198620, November 12, 2014)
Photo from Unsplash | Simon Kadula
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
- A cashier who, through carelessness, lost a document evidencing a cash receipt, and then wilfully chose not to record the excess cash as miscellaneous income and instead took it home and spent it on herself, and later repeatedly denied or concealed the cash overage when confronted, deserves to be dismissed.
- It would be most unfair to require an employer to continue employing as its cashier a person whom it reasonably believes is no longer capable of giving full and wholehearted trustworthiness in the stewardship of company funds.
(P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. vs. Flordeliz Velayo, G.R. No. 198620, November 12, 2014)
In the case of P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. vs. Flordeliz Velayo, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a cashier’s failure to properly safeguard and account for missing cash constitutes sufficient grounds for dismissal.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
- On June 13, 2003, PJ LHUILLIER hired FLORDELIZ as Accounting Clerk. On February 9, 2008 FLORDELIZ was served with a Show Cause Memo ordering her to explain within 48 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for dishonesty, misappropriation, theft or embezzlement of company funds. Thereafter, she was placed under preventive suspension from February 9 to March 8, 2008 while her case was under investigation.
- The charges against FLORDELIZ were based on the Audit Findings conducted on October 29, 2007, where the overage amount of ₱540.00 was not reported immediately to the supervisor, not recorded at the end of that day.
- On February 11, 2008, FLORDELIZ submitted her reply and admitted that she was not able to report the overage to the supervisor since the latter was on leave on that day and that she was still tracing the overage; and that the omission or failure to report immediately the overage was just a simple mistake without intent to defraud her employer.
- On March 10, 2008, after the conduct of a formal investigation and after finding the explanations without merit, PJ LHUILLIER terminated her employment as per Notice of Termination on grounds of serious misconduct and breach of trust.
- On March 14, 2008, FLORDELIZ filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
The LA found that the termination was valid and based not on a mere act of simple negligence in the performance of her duties as cashier:
This is not a case of simple negligence as the facts show that complainant, instead of reporting the matter immediately, had set aside the ₱540.00 for her personal use instead of reporting the overage or recording it in the operating system of the company.
Ruling of the NLRC
On appeal, the NLRC countermanded the LA, holding that FLORDELIZ was illegally dismissed since PJ LHUILLIER failed to prove a just cause of serious misconduct and willful breach of trust:
Ruling of the CA
Affirmed the NLRC’s decision that there was illegal dismissal.
Ruling of the Court
The termination of FLORDELIZ was valid. FLORDELIZ’s misconduct must be viewed in light of the strictly fiduciary nature of her position.
In treating the respondent’s misconduct as a simple negligence or a simple mistake, both the CA and the NLRC grossly failed to consider that she held a position of utmost trust and confidence in the company.
Classes of Corporate Positions of Trust
There are two classes of corporate positions of trust: on the one hand are the managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and other officers or members of the managerial staff;on the other hand are the fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.
Flordeliz’s Position of Trust
FLORDELIZ was first hired by the petitioners as an accounting clerk on June 13, 2003. On October 29, 2007, the date of the subject incident, she performed the function of vault custodian and cashier in the petitioners’ Branch 4 pawnshop in Capistrano, Cagayan de Oro City. In addition to her custodial duties, it was FLORDELIZ who electronically posted the day’s transactions in the books of accounts of the branch, a function that is essentially separate from that of cashier or custodian.
It is plain to see then that when both functions are assigned to one person to perform, a very risky situation of conflicting interests is created whereby the cashier can purloin the money in her custody and effectively cover her tracks, at least temporarily, by simply not recording in the books the cash receipt she misappropriated.
The series of willful misconduct committed by FLORDELIZ in mishandling the unaccounted cash receipt exposes her as unworthy of the utmost trust inherent in her position as branch cashier and vault custodian and bookkeeper.
Requisites to Invoke Loss of Trust and Confidence
In order that an employer may invoke loss of trust and confidence in terminating an employee under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, certain requirements must be complied with, namely: (1) the employee must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. While loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, it does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, it being sufficient that there is some basis to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of the employee’s participation therein rendered him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.
Mere substantial evidence is sufficient to establish loss of trust and confidence.
It must also be stressed that only substantial evidence is required in order to support a finding that an employer’s trust and confidence accorded to its employee had been breached.
The language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer’s whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.
A cashier’s inability to safeguard and account for missing cash is sufficient cause to dismiss her.
FLORDELIZ insisted that she never intended to misappropriate the missing fund, but the Court held that misappropriation of company funds, notwithstanding that the shortage has been restituted, is a valid ground to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence.
It is immaterial what was FLORDELIZ’s intent concerning the missing fund, for the undisputed fact is that cash which she held in trust for the company was missing in her custody. At the very least, she was negligent and failed to meet the degree of care and fidelity demanded of her as cashier. Her excuses and failure to give a satisfactory explanation for the missing cash only gave the petitioners sufficient reason to lose confidence in her.
It would be most unfair to require an employer to continue employing as its cashier a person whom it reasonably believes is no longer capable of giving full and whole hearted trustworthiness in the stewardship of company funds.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.