The worker, not the work - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away)

This is another case of a punishment not commensurate with the infraction committed by an employee.

The employee here is the cashier of a bookstore whom we shall call Delia. She has been working with the store for more than six years when she made a double payment to a book agent.

The double payment arose when the sales clerk of the store issued to one of its sales agent two unofficial receipts bearing identical amounts of the same transaction, instead of giving one copy of the store and the other to the agent pursuant to the store's procedure in paying its freelance agent.

When the agent presented both receipts to Delia, the latter noticed the two receipts with the same amount. So she asked the agent whether he made two deliveries on that day. When the agent answered in the affirmative, Delia paid him the total amount of the two receipts, marked them as "paid" and filed them.

When the management learned of this double payment, Delia was immediately placed under preventive suspension and asked to explain. Delia did explain and contended that she cannot be held responsible for the overpayment as she merely followed the usual procedure of the company. It should be the sales clerk who should be held responsible for the issuance of the two receipts. Simultaneously with her explanation, she filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the NLRC.

The store, however, did not accept her explanation and eventually dismissed her for alleged dereliction of duty in violation of the store's rules and regulations.

Immediately after her dismissal, Delia amended her complaint to include illegal dismissal and payment of 13th month pay, actual moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

The labor arbiter rules in favor of Delia, ordered her reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and awarded her full backwages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the arbiter's decision, ordered the payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement but deleted the award of backwages because according to NLRC Delia was also negligent.

On appeal, Delia claimed that the deleting of the award for backwages was too harsh and grossly disproportionate to her infraction. So she contended that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in deleting the award of backwages. Was Delia correct?

Yes. There is no deliberate intent on the part of Delia to prejudice the company. It can be safely said that at most, Delia committed merely an error of judgment in paying the sales agent without verifying the authenticity of the receipts. The sales clerk who issued the receipts confirmed the store's procedure that when an outside sales agent does not have a receipt of his own, the store itself thru her, prepares two identical copies of the unofficial receipt evidencing the payment of the books; one copy to be retained by the bookstore and the other to be issued to the agent upon payment by the cashier. Such procedure does not require prior approval of the immediate superior.

Delia's good faith is further buttressed by the fact that the two unofficial receipts which served as basis for payment were retained in the company's file together with the receipts of payment and were both marked as paid. The store can therefore demand from the book agent, who is a regular client, the return of the overpaid amount.

More importantly, this was the first time that Delia made an overpayment. Such an infraction which was the only one she had ever committed should not be heavily taken against her. Besides, she was not solely responsible for the said incident. The fact of overpayment was primarily attributable to the sales clerk who issued two unofficial receipts to the sales agent in violation of standard company policy, as well as the misrepresentation committed by the book agent that the two receipts covered two separate transactions.

The total withholding of full backwages is therefore too harsh and severely disproportionate to the offense committed by Delia. in all cases where punishment of any sort is imposed, the offender shall be given the benefit of all doubts that may exist as to his responsibility for the offense charged.

The employer should bear in mind that, in the exercise of its prerogative to discipline its employees, what is at stake is not the employee's position but her livelihood as well. The law regards the workers with compassion (De Guzman vs. NRLC et. al. G.R. No. 130617 Aug. 11, 1999).

Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: [email protected].