Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
GLOBE TELECOM, INC. VS. KAY ABASTILLAS EBITNER, G.R. NO. 242286 (JANUARY 16, 2023):
WRONGFUL INTENT NEEDS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO VALIDLY DISMISS AN EMPLOYEE
ON THE GROUND OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Respondent Kay Abastillas Ebitner (“respondent Ebitner”) was hired by petitioner Globe Telecom, Inc. (“petitioner Globe”) sometime in June 2005. Respondent Ebitner rose from the ranks and was eventually promoted to Retail Shop Specialist. On March 16, 2015, petitioner Globe served on respondent Ebitner a Notice to Explain directing her to give details on why she facilitated credit adjustment on her father’s account without proper notation on its justification. In the Notice to Explain, respondent Ebitner was accused of violating petitioner Globe’s Code of Conduct, specifically non-observance of Standard Operating Procedure, Fraud against the Company, and Serious Misconduct, when she facilitated the credit adjustment using her own user ID amounting to Php998.99.
Respondent Ebitner submitted her written explanation admitting that she was the one who facilitated the credit adjustment using her own user ID but said that she could no longer recall the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Respondent Ebitner asked that she be allowed to check the transaction records hoping she would remember why she made the adjustment. Respondent Ebitner also maintained that if the said transaction was invalid, she should have received an e-mail from management within a month from the date of the transaction as per company policy. Lastly, respondent Ebitner expressed her willingness to reimburse the amount involved.
During the administrative hearing, respondent Ebitner justified that it was her mother who used the phone of her father who complained about dropped calls. Respondent Ebitner said that as a sign of goodwill, she adjusted the Monthly Service Fee or MSF. Respondent also maintained that she made a proper notation on the said transaction. Petitioner Globe served a Notice of Decision to respondent Ebitner dismissing her for Fraud and Serious Misconduct.
Respondent Ebitner filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in respondent Ebitner’s favor ruling that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh and ordered her reinstatement. However, the Labor Arbiter did not award backwages ruling that it is the penalty for the invalid transaction. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission partially granted the appeal and ordered the full payment of backwages to respondent Ebitner from the date of her dismissal up to her actual reinstatement. However, on motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed its earlier decision declaring petitioner Globe not guilty of illegal dismissal and deleted all the monetary awards it earlier granted to respondent Ebitner. On Petition for Certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the ruling of the NLRC and ordered the payment of separation pay of one (1) month salary for every year of service less one (1) month salary for respondent Ebitner’s infraction. The Court of Appeals also directed respondent Ebitner to reimburse petitioner Globe the amount of the invalid transaction.
The Supreme Court restated the requisites of a valid dismissal on the ground of Serious Misconduct, to wit: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. Discussing the last requisite, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Globe failed to convincingly prove that the credit adjustment was made with wrongful intent. The Court held that petitioner Globe failed to prove why such adjustment was invalid. The Court also held that being a Retail Shop Specialist, it was within respondent Ebitner’s authority to do so. The Court held:
“To reiterate, while a violation of a company procedure may constitute misconduct in the ordinary sense, serious misconduct as a ground for dismissal requires wrongful intent. Therefore, even granting that respondent indeed failed to indicate the proper notation in the credit adjustment, petitioner was not able to clearly show what was the effect of this lack of notation. Did the lack of notation conceal the adjustment? Did it hide the identity of the person who made the adjustment? While it may have relieved her father from paying, was it really unwarranted, therefore depriving petitioner of its lawful income? Again, petitioner’s failure to clarify these matters leaves the Court in the dark. For all We know, the adjustment may have been perfectly valid and justified, only without the proper notation. Further, We just cannot agree with the assumption of the CA that the lack of notation leads to the conclusion that respondent intended to make the adjustment undetected. There is no evidence presented by petitioner supporting such assumption.
Lastly, the fact that respondent herself made the adjustment on her own father’s account cannot be taken against her for the simple reason that petitioner failed to prove, much less allege, that such is against company policy.
In all, what is only firmly established by the proceedings below is that respondent made a credit adjustment on her father’s account in the amount of P998.99. By no stretch of imagination can this be considered serious misconduct. Indeed, even the presence or absence of the notation on the adjustment – upon which petitioner anchors its position – is disputed. As found by the NLRC: x x x” (Italics and emphasis supplied)
On the ground of Fraud, which the Supreme Court held to be separate and distinct from loss of trust and confidence, the Court held that the argument of petitioner Globe that respondent Ebitner committed dishonesty just because she made credit adjustment on her father’s account is highly speculative. It also found preposterous the “self-preservation” argument of petitioner Globe that what if 5,000 of its employees would adjust the billing statements of their friends and relatives. The Court held:
“Petitioner’s contentions are highly speculative. First, it erroneously assumes that respondent has already done the misdeed in the past and second, it falsely speculates that all of its 5,000 employees are predisposed to unduly adjust the bills of their friends and relatives. It thus concludes that because of these circumstances, as a measure of self-preservation, the dismissal of respondent was warranted. It does not take much to see that petitioner’s position is shallow at best. While petitioner is perfectly free to take precautionary measures to protect its interests, it certainly cannot do so at the expense of its employees.”
Finally, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Ebitner does not complain about the credit adjustment, only that respondent Ebitner supposedly did not make the proper notation. The same, according to the Court, assuming arguendo that it is a violation of the Standard Operating Procedure, does not automatically translate to fraud and/or dishonesty. Fraud or dishonesty implies a “conscious and intentional design to evade the normal fulfillment of existing obligations” and must be “proven to have been done intentionally, knowingly and purposedly” and “not simply a result of carelessness, negligence, or inattention”.