SYNOPSIS
Wilfredo Baron, acting
section manager of petitioner company for North Luzon covering Baguio City, La
Trinidad and Benguet, was subjected to several audits after a killer earthquake
hit Baguio City on July 16, 1990. The audits disclosed that he reported a
higher quantity of damaged stocks than the total quantity of damaged stocks
confirmed by customers’ listing, over declared excess bad orders in the amount
of P64,740.56 and failed to account for his expense allowance. He was required
to temporarily report in Pasig pending result of the investigation. However,
his salaries during that period were withheld from him. He discontinued
reporting for work and filed a complaint for constructive dismissal for his
assignment in Pasig and non-payment of salaries, among others. Despite the
report of the final investigation conducted on respondent affirming the
irregularities committed by him, the Labor Arbiter ruled that he was dismissed
constructively. On appeal, the NLRC upheld petitioner’s prerogative to
investigate and reassign private respondent, and affirmed the findings of the
Labor Arbiter. Hence, this petition.
The Supreme Court held
that a transfer of work assignment pending investigation of irregularities
allegedly committed by an employee is a valid exercise of management; that an
employee maybe dismissed for commission of fraud or misappropriation of company
funds on the basis of substantial evidence; and that an employee is entitled to
salaries for services actually rendered.
SYLLABUS
1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE;
EMPLOYMENT; TRANSFER AND REASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES, PREROGATIVE OF EMPLOYER.- This Court has defined a
valid exercise of management prerogative as one which covers hiring, work
assignment, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used,
processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer
of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline,
dismissal and recall of workers. Except as provided for or limited by special
laws, employers are free to regulate, according to their own discretion and
judgment, all aspects of employment. Re-assignments made by management pending
investigation of irregularities allegedly committed by an employee fall within
the ambit of management prerogative. The purpose of reassignments is no
different from that of preventive suspension which management could validly
impose as a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company’s property
pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by
the employee.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST
EMPLOYEES; SUBSTANTIAL PROOF OF IRREGULARITY, SUFFICIENT BASIS.- While there may be no
direct evidence to prove that Baron actually and deliberately committed fraud
or misappropriation of Company funds, there was substantial proof of the
existence of irregularities committed by him in the use of the funds. We have ruled
that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond
reasonable doubt, is sufficient as basis for the imposition of any disciplinary
action upon the employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied
where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is
responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONDUCT OF AUDITS AND
INVESTIGATION, VALID ACTS OF MANAGEMENT.- We find that petitioners’ acts of conducting
audits and investigation on the alleged irregularities committed by private
respondent and in reassigning him to another place of work pending the results
of the investigation were based on valid and legitimate grounds. As such, these
acts of management cannot amount to constructive dismissal.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO SALARIES
FOR SERVICES RENDERED; CASE AT BAR.- The records show that during the audit and
investigation Baron was reassigned to the head office of the Company in Pasig
City without pay beginning 1 January 1991 to 15 March 1991 when he did not
return to work anymore. He was required to report for work for the Company
although his regular sales route in Baguio City was suspended. There is nothing
in the records however that would show that petitioners placed private
respondent under preventive suspension. Hence for services rendered arising
from his new assignment from January 1991 to 15 March 1991 he should have been
paid his salaries for the period as well as proportionate 13th month pay.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JOINT LIABILITY OF
EMPLOYERS IN UNJUSTLY WITHHOLDING EMPLOYEE’S SALARIES.- The circumstances of this
case clearly show that the petitioners had knowledge and allowed the
withholding of salaries of private respondent starting 1 January 1991 up to the
time he resigned from his employment. Therefore, they are held jointly and
severally liable to pay private respondent the amounts indicated above in the
total amount of P8,937.55.
6. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; ATTORNEY’S FEES;
EMPLOYEE FORCED TO LITIGATE TO RECOVER WAGES.- Further, private respondent was forced to
litigate for the recovery of his wages, hence, he is entitled to an award of
attorneys fees of P1,000.00 which amount is reasonable in this case.
APPEARANCES OF
COUNSEL
Romulo, Mabanta,
Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles for petitioners.
Nellie M. Olairez for
private respondent.