SC: Employer correct in axing DISHONEST worker, even if money involved is too small

CASE DIGEST: THE COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CLARITA P. GACAYAN, Respondent. (G.R. No. 149433. June 22, 2011).

In this case, an employee lied about her reimbursement requests amounting to only 415 pesos and 56 cents. Her employer fired her and she went to the labor court to complain. The Supreme Court agreed with the employer that "[a]lthough the amounts involved in the subject receipts were relatively small," such an act of altering receipts gives the company enough basis to remove her from employment because it "adversely reflect[s] on her integrity and honesty."

FACTS: One of the benefits enjoyed by the employees of petitioner company was the reimbursement of meal and transportation expenses incurred while rendering overtime work.

It was in connection with this company policy that respondent Gacayan, then a Senior Financial Accountant, was made to explain the alleged alterations in three (3) receipts which she submitted to support her claim for reimbursement of meal expenses, to wit:1) McDonalds Receipt No. 875493 dated October 1, 1994 for P111.00; 2) Shakey's Pizza Parlor Receipt No. 122658 dated November 20, 1994 for P174.06; and 3) Shakey's Pizza Parlor Receipt No. 41274 dated July 19, 1994 for P130.50.

Petitioner company sent respondent Gacayan several memoranda requiring her to explain why her claims for reimbursement should not be considered fraudulent since there were alterations, i.e., the dates of issuance of the receipts and the food items purchased as enumerated thereon, in the receipts she submitted. Consequently, respondent Gacayan submitted her explanation denying any personal knowledge in the commission of the alterations on the subject receipts.

Petitioner company then conducted a hearing and formal investigation on the matter to give respondent Gacayan an opportunity to explain the issues against her and to present her side.After attending the first scheduled hearing and participating thereat, respondent Gacayan did not attend the succeeding hearings, citing her doctors advice to rest, and likewise complaining of the alleged partiality of the investigating committee against her.
In a letter dated April 4, 1995, petitioner company dismissed respondent Gacayan for fraudulently submitting tampered and/or altered receipts in support of her petty cash reimbursements in gross violation of the companys rules and regulations.ISSUE: Was Gacayan illegally dismissed?

HELD: PETITION GRANTED. No, Gacayan was not illegally dismissed. Her employer's decision to fire her was legal.

In the instant case, respondent Gacayan was the Senior Financial Accountant of petitioner company. While respondent Gacayan denies that she is handling or has custody of petitioners funds, a re-examination of the records of this case reveals that she indeed handled delicate and confidential matters in the financial analyses and evaluations of the action plans and strategies of petitioner company.Respondent Gacayan was also privy to the strategic and operational decision-making of petitioner company, a sensitive and delicate position requiring the latters utmost trust and confidence. As such, she should be considered as holding a position of responsibility or of trust and confidence.

Respondent Gacayan intentionally, knowingly, purposely, and without justifiable excuse, submitted tampered or altered receipts to support her claim for meal reimbursement. Respondent Gacayan failed to sufficiently refute the charges against her for the submission of said fraudulent items of expense. All she did was to deny any personal knowledge in the commission of the alterations in the subject receipts and to point fingers at other people who may have done the alterations.

Although the amounts involved in the subject receipts were relatively small, or only the dates and/or items ordered were altered or tampered with, respondent Gacayans act of submitting fraudulent items of expense adversely reflected on her integrity and honesty, which is ample basis for petitioner company to lose its trust and confidence in her.

In fine, petitioner company had sufficiently discharged its burden of proving that the dismissal of respondent Gacayan was for just cause, that it was made within the parameters of the law, and that respondent was afforded due process pursuant to the basic tenets of equity, justice and fair play.We agree with petitioner company that to allow respondent Gacayan to be reinstated to her former position with payment of backwages would tend rather to reward dishonesty and ennoble breach of trust by employees to the prejudice of the employer.