Manila Electric Company v. Maria Luisa Beltran G.R. No. 173774 January 30, 2012 Del Castillo, J.

Facts: Respondent Maria Luisa Beltran was an employee of petitioner Manila Electric Company (Meralco) since 1987. On September 28, 1996, Andy Chang, a customer of Meralco, made a cash payment of P15,164.48 to the branch of the company where Beltran is employed. Beltran issued a receipt for the payment and kept the money, along with the original copy of the receipt, in the drawer of her desk. However, she failed to immediately remit the said cash payment. On January 7, 1997, Beltran was confronted by her immediate supervisor, Elenita Garcia, about the unremitted cash payment. Beltran, however, failed to remit the cash payment on that day and even on the next day when she reported for work. Beltran subsequently went on leave of absence on January 9 and 10, 1997. It was only on January 13, 1997 that the money with the pertinent documents were handed over. In her defense, Beltran admitted accepting the said cash payment and attributed her failure to immediately remit the cash to domestic problems which she had at home. She alleged on her Sinumpaang Salaysay that on the day she accepted the cash payment, she had a huge fight with her husband which led to their separation.She also claimed that she went on leave of absence to take care of her sick child. She contended that subsequent marital woes coupled with her worries for her ailing child distracted her into forgetting the cash payment. Beltran was placed under preventive suspension effective January 20, 1997 pending completion of an investigation. On June 16, 1999, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Beltran was negligent, but the penalty of dismissal was not commensurate to the degree of infraction committed as there was no adequate proof of misappropriation. On May 30, 2001, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters decision and ruled that Meralco validly dismissed Beltran. The NLRC was convinced that Beltran used the money for her personal needs since her act of taking a leave of absence right after her confrontation with Garcia suggested that she needed time to produce it. On November 25, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRCs decision and held that the mere failure to remit the payment was unintentional and not attended by any ill motive and that her excuse for the inadvertence was reasonable. Hence, Meralco, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not Beltrans belated remittance of the customers cash payment justify the imposition of dismissal Ruling: Held: NO. Although Beltran is unquestionably negligent in her failure to immediately turn over the cash payment, such level of negligence is insufficient to warrant separation from employment. To justify removal from service, the negligence should be gross and habitual. Gross negligence is the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. Habitual neglect, on the other hand, connotes repeated failure to perform ones duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. No concrete evidence was presented by Meralco to show that Beltrans delay in remitting the funds was done intentionally. Neither was it shown that same is wilful, unlawful and felonious contrary to Meralcos finding as stated in the letter of termination it sent to Beltran. Moreover, Beltrans simple negligence did not result in any loss. From the time she received the payment until she was apprised by her supervisor about Changs payment, no harm or damage to the company or to its customers attributable to Beltrans negligence was alleged by Meralco. Also, from the time she was apprised of the non-remittance by her superior until the turn-over of the amount, no such harm or damage was ever claimed by Meralco. Under the circumstances, Meralcos sanction of dismissal will not be commensurate to Beltrans inadvertence not only because there was no clear showing of bad faith and malice but also in consideration of her untainted record of long and dedicated service to Meralco. The magnitude of the infraction committed by an employee must be weighed and equated with the penalty prescribed and must be commensurate thereto, in view of the gravity of the penalty of dismissal or termination from the service. The employer should bear in mind that in termination cases, what is at stake is not simply the employees job or position but her very livelihood. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by an employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment. Hence, in the case at bar, Beltran should be reinstated without backwages; the forfeiture of her salary is an equitable punishment for the simple negligence committed.