STA. ANA v. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC.

Julieta B. Sta. Ana Vs. Manila Jockey Club, Inc.

G.R. No. 208459

February 15, 2017

Facts

In May 1977, MJCI, a corporation with legislative franchise to operate horse race betting, hired Julieta B. Sta. Ana as outlet teller of its off-track betting station in Tayuman, Manila. On November 13, 2008, however, MTCI issued a Memorandum stating that its Treasury Department was discovered to have been illegally appropriating funds and lending it out to the employees of MJCI. As a result, MTCI required its officers and employees to report any loan obtained from said department or any of its personnel. On December 21, 2008, MJCI’s Internal Auditing Department submitted its Preliminary Report indicating that its Agudo OTB Branch had unaccounted check remittances amounting to ₱44,377,455.00 for the period January 10, 2008 to November 30, 2008.

MJCI charged Sta. Ana with the following infractions:

(a) Stealing or attempting to steal corporate property or money/corporate assets;

(b) Malversation;

 (c) Engaging/conniving in anomalous transactions. Later, MJCI served upon Sta. Ana a Notice of Investigation reiterating the accusations against her, and narrating the circumstances surrounding her case that there were unaccounted shortages incurred by the Cashier Department. The Balance Sheet as of November 2008 indicated that the Cash on Hand amounted to around ₱198 million; actual counting of the cash in vault revealed, however, that the actual amount is only around ₱3.1 million. At the center of this irregularity and/or fraud is Josephine Tejada. That Josephine Tejada, without authority, has been lending large amount of money to some MJCI personnel using corporate funds. It has likewise been reported that Sta. Ana were abetting Josephine Tejada in the said unauthorized lending or that you yourself has also been lending to some MJCI personnel using corporate funds and without any authority from management. The Notice further informed Sta. Ana of her 30-day suspension without pay effective January 16, 2009.

Consequently, the SDC found Sta. Ana guilty of conspiring to defraud, illegally take funds, and cause irreparable damage to MJCI; as such, MJCI lost its trust on her. It also declared that even granting that there was no conspiracy, Sta. Ana, nonetheless, committed gross inexcusable negligence for failure to perform her duties and protect the interest of MJCI. SDC recommended the dismissal of Sta. Ana and the filing of criminal cases for qualified theft and other appropriate charges. On February 16, 2009, MJCI issued a Notice of Termination to Sta. Ana In her Answer, Sta. Ana averred that she did not know anything regarding MJCI's unaccounted money and that her suspension was unjust. She maintained that she did not violate any company rule by engaging in the lending business. Sta. Ana asserted that she had been in the money lending business for 15 years, or even prior to the takeover by the new management of MJCI, and that her capital was sourced from the sale of her fishing boats. On February 25, 2009, Sta. Ana filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees against MJCI/ Atty. Reyno, its President.

Sta. Ana averred that she had been in the service for 31 years prior to her dismissal. She stressed that she had bank deposits, real properties and fishing business to fund her lending business; and, the fact that she lent money to her co-employees is not proof that she used MJCI's funds for her business. She further insisted that there was no company rule prohibiting employees from engaging in their own businesses. In addition, Sta. Ana contended that she had no direct access to her employer's money; thus, she could not have stolen it. She pointed out that she never incurred a shortage in remitting the income of her OTB Branch or the OTB Tayuman Branch. Lastly, Sta. Ana stated that her one-time request for Tejada to accommodate a company personnel of the company is not evidence of any complicity with Tejada. Similarly, she should not be dragged into the controversy in the Cashier/Treasury Department of MJCI just because she was a "kumare" of Tejada.

Sta. Ana] submitted additional documents to show her capability to engage in loan operations: These are:(1) Certification from PS Bank that Sta. Ana has existing housing loan with outstanding balance of ₱439,421.65, (2) Permit to Operate fishing vessels issued by the Maritime Industry Authority, (3) various statement of accounts from BPI, HSBC, Citibank, BDO, Standard Chartered, Metrobank credit cards. The three fishing vessels were already sold, according to her, and she used the proceeds in her lending business. Likewise, the annotations in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-389599 under the name of Sta. Ana and her spouse proved that they had been mortgaging their real property since 2003. The latest of such mortgage was on August 23, 2007 to secure the loan of One Million Pesos from PSBank

Issue

Whether or not Sta. Ana was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

Held

No, Sta. Ana was not validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. The court held that it is a cardinal rule that loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, and not simulated; it must arise from dishonest or deceitful conduct, and must not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.44While proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, loss of trust must have some basis or such reasonable ground for one to believe that the employee committed the infraction, and the latter's participation makes him or her totally unworthy of the trust demanded by the position. Here, MJCI failed to prove that Sta. Ana committed willful breach of its trust.1 Particularly, it failed to establish that Sta. Ana used its employee for her personal business during office hours, and used its money; without authority, to lend money to another. Hence, to dismiss her on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is unwarranted.