239 Phil.

119

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 75510. October 27, 1987 ]
RUFINA SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION AND KINGLY COMMODITIES
TRADERS AND MULTI-RESOURCES, INC., RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION

FELICIANO, J.:

Petitioner started working with respondent commodities trading Corporation in

November 1977 as Investment Counselor and eventually became Vice-President,
Marketing. On 18 September 1984, petitioner was charged with allowing or failing
to supervise and monitor certain activities of investment counselors in her
department, which included the signing of a contract opening an account for a client
by an investment counselor without authority from the client, transfers of funds from
one account to another without the knowledge and authority of the clients involved,
unauthorized transactions in foreign currency with clients of the respondent
Corporation, unauthorized approval of leave for members of her department, and
resulting in loss of confidence in petitioner. Petitioner was preventively suspended
and required to explain her acts or failure to act. Two (2) days later, petitioner
submitted her detailed answer or explanation. On 27 September 1984, the Executive
Vice-President and General Manager of respondent Corporation found petitioner's
written explanation unsatisfactory and notified petitioner that the Corporation had
lost confidence in her ability to discharge the functions of her office and accordingly
terminated her services.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal against respondent
Corporation and Mr. Guil Rivera, Senior Vice-President, and Mr. Richard Tan,
Executive Vice-President and General Manager. She asked for reinstatement with
backwages, as well as moral and exemplary damages, medical expenses, attorney's
fees and other litigation expenses.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/1/23, 9 10 PM
Page 1 of 7
:
 On 8 July 1985, Labor Arbiter A.L. Sevilla rendered a Decision requiring the
respondent Corporation to pay petitioner: (1) separation pay in the amount of
P10,500.00; (2) six (6) months backwages in the amount of P120,000.00; (3) moral
damages in the amount of P500,000.00; (4) exemplary damages in the amount of
P100,000.00; and (5) attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the award.

On appeal by the private respondents, public respondent NLRC, in a Decision dated

10 March 1986, modified the Labor Arbiter's award by deleting the award of moral
and exemplary damages and requiring respondent Corporation to pay: (1) separation
pay amounting to P21,000.00; (2) three (3) months backwages without qualification
and deduction amounting to P9,000.00; and (3) 10% of the award as attorney's fees.

Both the Labor Arbiter and respondent NLRC found that because of the strained
relations between petitioner and respondent Corporation, reinstatement of petitioner
was not feasible. Respondent Corporation had alleged that petitioner had
immediately found employment with Onapal Philippines Commodities, which had
not been denied or refuted by petitioner. Because respondent Corporation had failed
to specify the definite date of her employment, respondent NLRC granted petitioner
three (3) months backwages without qualification and deduction.

In the present Petition for Certiorari, petitioner seeks the annulment of the Decision
of respondent NLRC dated 10 March 1986 and the revival or reinstatement of the
Decision of Labor Arbiter Sevilla dated 8 July 1985.

Petitioner claims that respondent Corporation acted in bad faith in suspending and
terminating her services. Petitioner asserts that:

1. respondent Corporation had violated her right to due process by

suspending her immediately without the benefit of hearing. She argues
that the notice of preventive suspension served her on 18 September 1986
was "living proof" that the corporation had already concluded she was
guilty of the charges levelled against her even before she could submit her
written explanation.

2. the "true reason" for her "illegal dismissal" was the "personal grudge
which Rivera harbored against her".

3. respondent Corporation's bad faith was also demonstrated in

discrimination against her in relation to other employees of the
Corporation who had been in the past similarly charged with alleged
infractions of the corporation's rules. More specifically, petitioner asserts

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/1/23, 9 10 PM
Page 2 of 7
:
 discrimination against herself consisting of the failure of the respondent
Corporation to dismiss the two (2) immediate supervisors of the
investment counselor who had carried out the unauthorized manipulations
of clients' accounts in petitioner's department.

4. petitioner also charges respondent Corporation with having

misrepresented the extent of her participation in or the scope of her duties
in respect of unauthorized acts and transactions of her subordinates in the
marketing department of respondent company.

The Court considers that petitioner has failed to show a grave abuse of discretion, or
an act performed without or in excess of jurisdiction, on the part of the respondent
NLRC.

In respect of Item 1, preventive suspension does not in itself prove that the company
had prejudged that petitioner was guilty of the charges she was asked to answer and
explain. Preventive suspension may be necessary for the protection of the company,
its operations and assets, pending investigation of the alleged malfeasance or
misfeasance on the part of officers or employees of the company and pending a
decision on the part of the company (See Sec. 3 of Rule XIV, Book V, of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code). Considering the very senior and
sensitive character of petitioner's position as head of a Department, a line position as
distinguished from a staff or planning position, and considering the unauthorized
transactions, then just discovered by the respondent Corporation, we do not believe
that the preventive suspension was an arbitrary and capricious act amounting to bad
faith on the part of the respondent Corporation.

In respect of Item 2, the alleged personal motive behind petitioner's dismissal --

personal envy or feelings of personal insecurity on the part of Guil Rivera; Senior
Vice-President, respondent NLRC found that petitioner had not sufficiently
established her assertion. Petitioner's assertion on this point appears no more than a
conjecture or supposition and does not afford an adequate basis for overturning
respondent NLRC's finding on this point. Further, if petitioner had clearly proven
such personal ill-will on the part of Mr. Rivera, a serious question would arise as to
whether the respondent Corporation (as distinguished from Mr. Rivera) could be held
liable at all for Mr. Rivera's acts in the absence of clear authorization for, or approval
or adoption of, such act by the respondent Corporation with knowledge of the
personal malice on the part of Mr. Rivera.

In respect of Item 3, respondent NLRC's decision was silent. The Court believes,
however, that respondent Corporation must be accorded reasonable latitude in

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/1/23, 9 10 PM
Page 3 of 7
:
 determining who among erring officers or employees should be punished by the
company and to what extent. In the instant case, respondent Corporation presumably
found it was not necessary to terminate the services also of the two (2) section heads
in petitioner's department, who clearly are much lower in the corporate hierarchy than
petitioner.

With respect to the last and most important of the above listed items, the scope of
petitioner's responsibility for the operations of her department and the extent of her
supervisory authority over her subordinates in the marketing department, respondent
NLRC set forth the following discussion and evaluation:

"Appellants stressed the point that complainant, as vice president,

marketing, is actually a department head of one of the company's sales
department (sic). As such, her basic function is the supervision and
monitoring the daily activities of her department and the employees she
supervises (sic). By the nature of the company's business, complainant as
a department head should see to it that the clients' trust and confidence in
the company is upheld through above-board transactions, untainted
relations, satisfactory servicing and unquestioned integrity of its officers
and staff, aside from the promotion of cordial employee relations among
her personnel through unbiased and uniform implementation of company
policies affecting employee benefits and welfare.

According to the appellants, the finding of the Labor Arbiter that

'complainant is not expected to keep an eye or be aware of all day-to-day
transactions of her workers particularly Investment Consultants in her
department' does not conform to the facts prevailing in this case.

In the Panemanglor case, which is the crucial point at issue, Panemanglor

opened an account with the respondent corporation on June 28, 1984 by
depositing the amount of P50,000.00 through Sofia Nazareno, investment
counsellor. Instead of the client signing the Customers Agreement, it was
Nazareno who signed the agreement and the signature card in the name of
the client, which is highly irregular. Had she exercised prudence in the
supervision of her investment consultants, the irregularity could have been
earlier detected. As a result, the sum of P25,000.00 from Panemanglor's
account was transferred by Nazareno to the account of Ramon Lopez,
without the knowledge of Panemanglor on July 9, 1984. On July 13,
1984, the said client withdrew the sum of P25,000.00 through a Payment
Instruction Form that was approved by the complainant. On August 6,
1984, the amount of P4,052.59 was transferred by Nazareno to the

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/1/23, 9 10 PM
Page 4 of 7
:
 account of Panemanglor from the account of Ramon Lopez. This
transaction was with the approval of the complainant. On September 3,
1984, Panemanglor demanded the payment of the balance of P25,000.00
from the respondent company to close his account and the letter of
Panemanglor was referred to complainant by respondent Guil Rivera for
necessary action. In her memorandum to senior vice president Guil
Rivera, complainant confirmed the irregularity in the handling of the
account of Panemanglor, but she failed to take appropriate action against
the erring employee which was within her power to discipline employees
under her supervision. Later on February 4, 1985, a complaint was filed
before the Securities and Exchange Commission by Panemanglor for the
recovery of the P25,000.00 plus damages against the respondent
corporation, contrary to her claim that the client will not file a recovery
suit against the corporation since the obligation was purely personal to
Nazareno.

Respondents contend that complainant could have immediately

discovered the unauthorized signature of Sofia Nazareno that led to the
illegal transfers of fund, had she followed the company procedure and
practice for her to be personally acquainted with new clients and her
admission that she was not aware of the complained acts has brought to
light that she was remiss in her supervisory and monitoring function. On
top of this, she failed to institute disciplinary action against the erring
employee.

xxx xxx xxx

As head of one of the company's sales department (sic) and a managerial

employee at that, complainant is expected to monitor the daily activities
of the investment counsellors and the transactions of clients in her
department. As a matter of practice and procedure, complainant, as vice-
president-marketing, is always informed of new clients for her to be
personally acquainted with the client. We agree with the appellants that
had the complainant adhered to this procedure, she could have
immediately noticed the unauthorized signature by Sofia Nazareno that
enabled her to transfer funds from one account to another. Likewise,
since the complainant approved the payment instruction for P25,000.00
on July 13, 1984, the transfer of P4,052.59 on August 6, 1984 from the
account of Ramon Lopez to Panemanglor's account, and the withdrawal of
the transferred amount on August 7, 1984, she could have easily
suspected that something was irregular with the transaction. Yet, it took

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/1/23, 9 10 PM
Page 5 of 7
:
 several months before she knew of the anomaly and it took her superior,
respondent Guil Rivera, to bring the matter to her attention. Under the
circumstances, it cannot be truthfully said that complainant has not been
without any fault whatsoever. For this reason, the basis for the award of
the moral and exemplary damages has not been sufficiently or
satisfactorily established by the complainant. And besides the dismissal
of the complainant by the respondent was done in good faith. x x x"
(Underscoring supplied)

Petitioner's argument that, because she was head of the entire marketing (sales)
department, she could not be expected to monitor the detailed or day-to-day acts and
behaviour of the staff members of her department, does not address what appears to
be the thrust of the respondent NLRC's decision. And that is, that as head of the
department, it was her responsibility to adopt ways and means of keeping herself
sufficiently informed of the activities of her staff members so as to prevent or at least
discover at an early stage, e.g., unauthorized or illegal transactions and manipulation
of clients' accounts. On the one hand, the above position taken by the respondent
NLRC cannot be regarded as so obviously unreasonable and despotic as to constitute
a grave abuse of discretion, given the character of the business of a commodities
trading company and the fact that very substantial sums of money are handled daily
by petitioner's department. Upon the other hand, petitioner's logic would lead to the
conclusion that the more senior the management position, the slighter the
responsibility for malfeasance or nonfeasance that can be laid upon the position-
holder; the chief executive officer of a corporation would effectively have, under this
logic, little or no responsibility at all.

Turning to the specific award made by respondent NLRC, the salary base properly
used in computing the separation pay and the backwages due to petitioner should
include not just the basic salary but also the regular allowances that petitioner had
been receiving (See Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
76721, 21 September 1987). In petitioner's case, the base figure properly includes
her: (a) basic salary of P3,000.00 a month; and (b) living allowance of P2,400 a
month (petitioner's Affidavit, dated 12 April 1985, Exhibit "G", Rollo, p. 105). The
commissions also claimed by petitioner ("override commission" plus "net deposit
incentive") are not properly includible in such base figure since such commissions
must be earned by actual market transactions attributable to petitioner. Neither
should "travels equivalent" [an unusual and unexplained term; P10,000.00 a month]
and "commission in trading personal clients" [P3,000.00 a month] be included in
such base figure. Considering that the charge of bad faith on the part of private
respondents was not proven, the respondent NLRC having, on the contrary, made a
finding that petitioner's dismissal was made in good faith there appears no real basis

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/1/23, 9 10 PM
Page 6 of 7
:
 for the award of attorney's fees (Art. 2208 [5], Civil Code). This award should not
exceed a nominal amount which we set at P1,500.00.

Thus, the appropriate computation would be:

A. Separation pay -- P5,400.00/month x 7 = P37,800.00

(in view of petitioner's seven (7)

years of service)

B. Backwages -- P5,400.00/month x 3 mos. = P16,200.00

Sub-Total P54,000.00

plus nominal attorney's

fees 1,500.00

TOTAL P55,500.00

========

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari for
lack of merit. The Decision of the respondent NLRC dated 10 March 1986 is
modified so as to award petitioner the following items: a) separation pay in the
amount of P37,800.00; b) backwages for three (3) months in the amount of
P16,200.00; and c) attorney's fees of P1,500.00, making a total of P55,500.00.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: November 13, 2014

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/1/23, 9 10 PM
Page 7 of 7
: