6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
allowance. Petitioner was told to accept it instead of the additional $600 because the
amount came from Japan and that she was the only one entitled to it. On December
25, 1991, considering that it was Christmas, petitioner treated the group. Thereafter,
petitioner received the amount of $300 equivalent in Japanese yen every month.
Sometime in May, 1992, Mr. Mike Orleans, the company's production manager received
reports from Japan that this monthly allowance did not reach the trainees.
On June 2, 1992 or after five months of training in Japan, AMI-PHIL. required petitioner
to explain within eight (8) hours her alleged misappropriation of $1,500 ($300 x 5
months) given by NTI Japan.
On June 4, 1992, petitioner answered AMI-PHIL. She admitted that she received the
$300 monthly allowance but explained that it was a bonus and additional benefit for
her given by the company (NTI of Japan) as per her request for being the leader of the
group.
On June 10, 1992, AMI-PHIL. terminated petitioner's services on the ground of violation
of company rules and regulations specifically "defrauding or attempting to defraud in
any manner the company of its funds or property."
Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against AMI-PHIL.
On November 29, 1993, the Labor Arbiter in his decision ruled in favor of the petitioner,
the dispositive portion thereof reading as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby ordered to
reinstate complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights
and privileges and to pay backwages from the time of dismissal up to the
date of this decision in the amount of Two Hundred Forty Six Thousand Eight
Hundred Six Pesos and 77/100 (P246,806.77).
Respondents are hereby assessed 10% of the total monetary award as
attorney's fees.
The counter-claims are hereby ordered dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[1]
On appeal to the NLRC by AMI-PHIL., the decision of the Labor Arbiter was reversed
and set aside.
The NLRC found that petitioner was guilty of acts of dishonesty and misappropriation of
company's funds which constituted a breach of trust and confidence reposed on
employees occupying a supervisory position.
Hence, this petition.
While it is true that loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes for
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34867
2/5