Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

160509 March 10, 2006 MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ZENAIDA G. SERRANO, Respondent. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The ase !efore the ourt is a petition for revie" # assailin$ the %# &anuar' ())% Decision ( and (# October ())% Resolution of the ourt of *ppeals in *+,.R. SP No. -.#-(. The ourt of *ppeals annulled the decision of the National /abor Relations o00ission 12N/R 23 and ordered petitioner Mercur' Dru$ orporation to pa' respondent 4enaida ,. Serrano separation pa', bac5"a$es and da0a$es. The 6acts On - &une #.7#, petitioner Mercur' Dru$ orporation 12Mercur'23 e0plo'ed respondent 4enaida ,. Serrano 12Serrano23 as one of Mercur' Recto+Soler !ranch8s phar0ac' assistants. Serrano8s pri0ar' dut' "as to attend to custo0ers at the retail counter. Serrano8s "or5 involved ta5in$ custo0ers8 orders, receivin$ pa'0ent for the orders, pullin$ out the ordered 0edicines or 0erchandise fro0 the shelves, co0putin$ the a0ount pa'able b' custo0ers, infor0in$ custo0ers of prices of the ite0s ordered, and handin$ the a0ount to the cashier "ho "ould then issue an official receipt. Serrano "ould also chec5 that each pa'0ent "as reflected in the cash re$istr' 0achine and then personall' hand the correspondin$ receipt "ith the purchased ite0 to the custo0er.% Mercur' alle$ed that on - Nove0ber #..#, Serrano, "hile in the retail area, poc5eted the P#() pa'0ent of one of the custo0ers. Mercur' Recto+Soler !ranch8s ,eneral Mana$er Rolando Mateo 12Mateo23 and Supervisor *ntonio oncepcion 12 oncepcion23 confronted Serrano about the incident. *s a result, Serrano "rote a resi$nation letter,9 to "it: Nov. -, #..# Dear Sir Mateo, I80 sorr' to infor0ed ;sic< 'ou that one of 0' custo0er;s< bu' 0e ;sic< #) caps S=ualene S at around -:)) PM. I did not $;i<ve hi0 the OR tape 5no"in$l' that the 0one' he $ave "as e>act on the ite0 he bu' ;sic<. I "as te0p ;sic< to do this, because he $ave 0e e>act a0ount on the ite0 ;sic<. !ut un5no"in$l', the custo0er ca0e ;bac5< after %) 0inutes and as5ed for the invoiced ;sic<. I $et the 0one' inside 0' poc5et and issued hi0 an official receipt. ;sic< Then Mr. Mateo tal5ed to 0e about this. So, I voluntaril' tender 0' resi$nation effective Nov. ?, #..#. 1si$ned3 4enaida Serrano Mercur' did not accept Serrano8s resi$nation. Instead, Mercur' issued a notice on ## &anuar' ())(

re=uestin$ Serrano to appear before the Investi$ation three ran5+and+file e0plo'ees.? The Investi$ation

o00ittee - co0posed of three 0ana$e0ent and

o00ittee unani0ousl' found Serrano $uilt' of dishonest' based on the follo"in$:

On Nove0ber (, #..#, at about (:9- P.M. N'0pha de los Santos chanced upon 4enaida Serrano at the bac5 of the R@ section of the Mercur' Dru$+Recto Soler !ranch "hile the latter "as transferrin$ 0one' "hich "ere folded into s0all s=uares 120aliliit at tupi+tupi23 fro0 her poc5et into her "allet. > > > >>>> *lso t"o 1(3 phar0ac' assistants told Mr. Rolando *. Mateo, !ranch Mana$er, that the' sa" Mrs. Serrano placin$ folded 0one' in her "allet. > > > On Nove0ber -, #..#, ;Mateo< "ent out of the branch store and enlisted the assistance of a 0ason and t"o 1(3 students > > > ;and< $ave the0 instructions to bu' at Mercur' Dru$+Recto Soler !ranch. The student to "ho0 he $ave P#)).)) "ent to bu' at 9:%) P.M. and he returned "ith his purchases dul' receipted. *fter about %) 0inutes the 0ason "ith P#().)) "ent to bu' S=ualene > > > and he returned "ith the $oods "ithout a receipt. He reported to Mr. Mateo that he "as not $iven a receipt. Mr. Mateo returned to the branch after he instructed Mr. *lfonso Teresa, the 0ason, to follo" after a "hile, loo5 for the phar0ac' assistant "ho attended to hi0 and as5 for a receipt. Apon his arrival at the branch Mr. Mateo advised Mr. *ntonio oncepcion, Retail Supervisor, that a custo0er "as not issued a cash re$ister tape and "ill return to as5 for an official receipt. > > > ;Mateo< told Mr. oncep;c<ion that it "as Ms. Serrano "ho served the custo0er and he should observe Ms. Serrano. > > > ;Teresa< arrived at the branch ;and< tal5ed "ith another phar0ac' assistant "ho in turn infor0ed Ms. Serrano that a custo0er "as loo5in$ for her. Mr. oncepcion observed that Ms. Serrano $re" pale > > > and nervous. > > > ;Serrano< "ent to the custo0ers counter "ith her hand on her poc5et and told the custo0er 2Sandali lan$ ho2. She then tried to distract Mr. oncepcion8s attention b' re=uestin$ the latter to si$n a refund slip but Mr. oncepcion told her to attend first to the custo0er "ho "as as5in$ for an OR. 6ro0 the custo0ers counter she bo"ed do"n near the area fro0 the plastic ba$s "hile holdin$ on to her poc5et, then "ent around the shelves to the rear of the store. She returned "ith the P#().)) folded li5e ci$arette and inserted the 0one' in the ed$e of the sales sheet, prepared the cash slip, then dictated the a0ount to be punched b' the cashier in the cash re$ister. *t this point, Mr. oncepcion as5ed Ms. Rosalinda Nicolas if the a0ount "as punched onl' after the custo0er ca0e bac5 to clai0 for a receipt and "hen the cashier replied 2'es2, Mr. oncepcion advised Ms. Serrano to follo" hi0 to the 0ana$er8s office. Ms. Serrano on the other hand clai0ed that at about -:)) P.M. she had - custo0ers a0on$ the0 the one "ho bou$ht ten 1#)3 capsules of S=ualene "orth P#().)). To lessen the nu0ber of custo0ers she handed the stoc5 to the custo0er and placed the 0one' on her 2sulatan2 1sales sheet3. *fter deliverin$ the #) S=ualene she a$ain too5 custo0ers8 orders and had her sales punched. She, ho"ever, for$ot about the P#().)). *nd "hile she "as preparin$ an order "orth P#?,))).)) the custo0er ca0e bac5 as5in$ for a receipt and it "as onl' then that she recalled that she had not 'et had her sales of #) S=ualene punched b' the cashier. > > > the cashier, Rosalinda Nicolas testified that the sales sheet "as on the cashier8s counter and that Ms. Serrano never brou$ht it an'"here. The cashier li5e"ise testified that the P#().)) ca0e fro0 her poc5et, folded li5e a ci$arette and "as inserted b' Ms. Serrano in her sales sheet after she "ent around before she prepared the cash slips. > > > >>>> 6ro0 the acts of Ms. Serrano the intention to poc5et the P#().)) is evident. 6irstl', she blatantl' disre$ard;ed< the house rule a$ainst salescler5s brin$in$ their personal 0one' "ith the0 "hile in the area. Secondl', the 0anner in "hich the 0one' "as folded 12li5e a ci$arette23 sho"s that Ms. Serrano too5 ti0e and effort to 0a5e the 0one' eas' to hide and to transfer to her "allet as she "as observed to have done in several occasions. *nd havin$ spent ti0e and effort to fold the 0one' it is unli5el' that she could have for$otten it. *$ain the 0anner the 0one' "as folded is incon$ruous "ith her clai0 that at the ti0e she served 9 to B custo0ers. Thirdl', Ms. Serrano did not search her sales sheet "hen the custo0er ca0e bac5 as5in$ for a receipt. On the other hand she "as seen to have ta5en the 0one' fro0 her poc5et, $o around the shelves to the rear of the store and insert the 0one' in her sales sheet onl' after she "ent bac5

to the cashiers counter. 6ourthl', if indeed the 0one' "as inserted in the sales sheet she "ould have seen it "hile dictatin$ her other sales to the cashier. 6ifth, her behavior at the ti0e "as that of a cornered $uilt' offender. She $re" pale, 2nataranta ;at< pai5ot+i5ot2. She li5e"ise tried to distract the supervisors8 attention, "hich onl' sho"s clearl' that she had so0ethin$ to hide. B 1C0phasis supplied3 Mercur' sent Serrano a letter dated #7 March #..( ter0inatin$ her e0plo'0ent effective #. March #..(. On (- March #..(, Serrano filed "ith the N/R *rbitration !ranch, National apital Re$ion a co0plaint for ille$al dis0issal, unfair labor practice and non+pa'0ent of benefits a$ainst Mercur'. In her position paper, Serrano reiterated her alle$ation durin$ the in+house investi$ation that she "as servin$ five custo0ers si0ultaneousl' at the ti0e of the incident. Then, a 0ale custo0er bou$ht #) capsules of S=ualene+S pa'in$ e>actl' P#(), consistin$ of one P#)) bill and one P() bill. The 0ale custo0er as5ed Serrano to hurr' up "hile she "as at the cashier8s counter. *s there "ere four other custo0ers to be served "ho "ere also in a hurr', she left the P#() "ith the cashier and $ave the capsules to the custo0er. *fter Serrano finished servin$ the other four custo0ers, the 0ale custo0er, "ho did not as5 for or perhaps for$ot to $et the receipt, could no lon$er be found. Since she "as bus' at the ti0e, Serrano clai0ed she for$ot about the pa'0ent.7 On %# *u$ust #..7, /abor *rbiter 6elipe P. Pati 12/abor *rbiter23 rendered a Decision findin$ ille$al the dis0issal of Serrano. The /abor *rbiter found Mercur'8s alle$ations a$ainst Serrano fabricated. The /abor *rbiter held that Serrano "as fra0ed+up and that Mercur' suffered no loss because Serrano did not ta5e an' propert' belon$in$ to Mercur'. The /abor *rbiter stressed that there "as no basis to presu0e that Serrano had no 0ore intention of re0ittin$ theP#() paid b' the custo0er, for in fact Serrano did re0it the a0ount to the cashier. The /abor *rbiter also held that Mercur' did not observe due process in dis0issin$ Serrano. Mercur' did not $ive Serrano a0ple opportunit' to be heard and defend herself before she "as dis0issed. The dispositive portion of the decision of the /abor *rbiter reads: DHCRC6ORC, all the fore$oin$ pre0ises bein$ considered, Eud$0ent is hereb' rendered findin$ respondent, MCR ARF DRA, ORPOR*TION, $uilt' of ille$all' dis0issin$ co0plainant, 4CN*ID* ,. SCRR*NO, "ithout la"ful cause and due process and thus ordered to reinstate her to her previous position "ithout loss of seniorit' ri$hts and other privile$es "ith pa'0ent of full bac5"a$es. It appearin$ that respondent, throu$h its representative, adopted 0alicious sche0es and acted in a "anton, oppressive and 0alevolent 0anner in effectin$ the dis0issal of co0plainant, "ho "as found b' this Office to have been fra0ed+up and "as forced to resi$n, respondent therefore is liable for 0oral da0a$es in the a0ount of 6ive Hundred Thousand Pesos 1P-)),))).))3. /i5e"ise, for causin$ co0plainant to secure the services of a la"'er to safe$uard her ri$hts and interests, respondent should be assessed attorne'8s fees in the a0ount e=uivalent to ten percent 1#)G3 of the 0onetar' a"ard in favor of co0plainant. > > > The char$e of unfair labor practice is dis0issed for lac5 of 0erit. SO ORDCRCD.. On appeal, the N/R reversed the /abor *rbiter and dis0issed the co0plaint of Serrano for lac5 of 0erit. The N/R found Serrano dishonest in the perfor0ance of her duties as phar0ac' assistant, "hich involved the custod', handlin$ or care and protection of Mercur'8s $oods. The N/R based this findin$ on Serrano8s alle$ed deliberate failure to issue a receipt for the sale of #) S=ualene+S capsules "orth P#() and "hich pa'0ent she tried to poc5et. The N/R further held that the fact that Mercur' did not lose an'thin$ "as of no 0o0ent. Dhen there is dishonest', actual da0a$e is i00aterial. The N/R $ave credence to the testi0onies of Mercur'8s "itnesses and noted the fact that Serrano had alread' been char$ed in court for =ualified theft. The N/R added that in cases of dis0issal for breach of trust and confidence, proof be'ond reasonable doubt of an e0plo'ee8s 0isconduct is not re=uired. It is sufficient that the e0plo'er had reasonable $round to believe that the e0plo'ee "as responsible for the 0isconduct renderin$ hi0 un"orth' of the trust de0anded b' his position.

The N/R further held that Serrano "as not denied of due process before her dis0issal. The N/R noted that that there "as an in+house investi$ation prior to Serrano8s ter0ination "here all the "itnesses a$ainst her "ere presented. The N/R ruled that it is 2not the denial of the ri$ht to be heard but the denial of the opportunit' to be heard2 that constitutes violation of due process. Serrano "ent to the ourt of *ppeals for relief. The Rulin$ of the ourt of *ppeals The ourt of *ppeals reversed the decision of the N/R and upheld the findin$s of the /abor *rbiter. The ourt of *ppeals found that the evidence a$ainst Serrano "ere insubstantial and unreliable to find her $uilt' of poc5etin$ the P#() pa'0ent. The ourt of *ppeals also ruled that Mercur' denied Serrano of due process before ter0inatin$ her. Dhile Mercur' $ave Serrano a notice of ter0ination, it did not $ive an' "ritten notice infor0in$ Serrano of the specific char$e a$ainst her. The ourt of *ppeals further held that since the relationship bet"een Mercur' and Serrano "as severel' strained, reinstate0ent "as no lon$er possible. The dispositive portion of the ourt of *ppeals8s Decision of %# &anuar' ())% reads: DHCRC6ORC, the petition is ,R*NTCD. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the N/R are *NNA//CD. Private respondent Mercur' Dru$ orporation is hereb' ordered to pa' petitioner 4enaida ,. Serrano the follo"in$ a0ounts: 1a3 Separation Pa' in the a0ount of PB%,B)).))H 1b3 6ull bac5"a$es fro0 date of dis0issal until the finalit' of this Decision, includin$ P9%,(#-.)) as #%th 0onth pa'H and 1c3 Reduced Moral Da0a$es in the a0ount of P-),))).)) and *ttorne'8s 6ees in the fi>ed a0ount ofP-),))).)). SO ORDCRCD.#) Mercur' filed a 0otion for reconsideration "hich the Resolution. Hence, this petition. The Issues The issues in this case are: 1#3 "hether there "as sufficient $round for Mercur' to ter0inate the e0plo'0ent of Serrano, and 1(3 "hether Mercur' denied Serrano of due process "hen Mercur' ter0inated her. The Rulin$ of the The petition is partl' 0eritorious. On the le$alit' of the dis0issal Mercur' ter0inated the e0plo'0ent of Serrano on the $round of loss of trust and confidence due to dishonest'. Mercur' relies on *rticle (7(1c3 of the /abor ode "hich states that an e0plo'ee 0a' be ter0inated on the $round of fraud or "illful breach b' the e0plo'ee of the trust reposed on hi0 b' his e0plo'er. /oss of trust and confidence is pre0ised on the fact that the e0plo'ee holds a position "hose functions 0a' onl' be perfor0ed b' so0eone "ho has the confidence of 0ana$e0ent. Such e0plo'ee has a $reater dut' to 0ana$e0ent than ordinar' "or5ers. The betra'al of this trust is the essence of the offense "hich is a $round for the e0plo'ee8s ter0ination. ## In this case, there is no =uestion that Mercur' had the ri$ht to e>pect full trust and confidence fro0 Serrano because of her position. Serrano8s routine dut' "as to handle Mercur'8s $oods and receive custo0ers8 pa'0ents for eventual handin$ to the cashier. /oss of trust and confidence, "hich should be $enuine, does not re=uire proof be'ond reasonable doubt.#( In this case, Mercur' alle$es that Serrano co00itted dishonest' b' poc5etin$ the P#() pa'0ent ourt ourt of *ppeals denied in its (# October ())%

of one of its custo0ers durin$ an entrap0ent initiated b' Mercur' Recto+Soler !ranch Mana$er Mateo. In her resi$nation letter, Serrano apolo$iIed for not issuin$ a receipt to one of Mercur'8s custo0ers for the purchase of #) S=ualene+S capsules. Serrano also ad0itted $ettin$ the pa'0ent inside her poc5et before handin$ it to the cashier. Ho"ever, Serrano e>plains that she "as then servin$ several custo0ers si0ultaneousl' and for$ot about the pa'0ent. Serrano re0e0bered it onl' "hen the custo0er returned and as5ed for a receipt. The cashier Rosalinda Nicolas 12Nicolas23 and oncepcion refute Serrano8s state0ents. #% Nicolas and oncepcion assert that Serrano handed to Nicolas "ell+folded 0one' bills, consistin$ of one P#)) bill and one P() bill, "hen the custo0er returned to the branch. The 0anner b' "hich the 0one' bills "ere folded 1li5e a ci$arette3 belies Serrano8s clai0 that she for$ot about the pa'0ent. #9 Moreover, 6ederico /u$ui 12/u$ui23 a.5.a. *lfredo Teresa /u$ui, "ho posed as a custo0er durin$ the entrap0ent, testified in the =ualified theft case a$ainst Serrano that he sa" Serrano too5 his pa'0ent out fro0 her poc5et. /u$ui8s affir0ative testi0on' has $reater evidentiar' "ei$ht than the denial of Serrano.#- The relevant portion of /u$ui8s testi0on' reads: J: *nd "hat did 'ou do after receivin$ ;those< ten tablets of S=ualeneK *: I "aited. J: *nd ho" 0uch did 'ou pa' for those 0edicine;s<K *: One hundred t"ent' 1P#().))3 pesos. J: Dill 'ou please describe to us the deno0ination of the 0one' 'ou $ave to Miss SerranoK *: One "hole hundred pesos bill and one piece t"ent' peso bill. J: So, 'ou 0entioned 'ou "aited. Dhat "ere 'ou "aitin$ at that ti0eK *: To $et a receipt. >>>> OART: Dhen 'ou "ere not $iven receipt, "hat did 'ou doK *: I "ent bac5 to ,rande Restaurant. >>>> J: Apon arrivin$ at the dru$store for the second ti0e, "hat did 'ou do, if an'K *: I sa" one co+e0plo'ee "here I as5ed for a receipt. J: *nd "hat "as the reaction of that e0plo'eeK *: I pointed to her, 4enaida, that I purchased 0edicine fro0 her. J: So, upon learnin$ that 'ou "ere re=uestin$ for a receipt, "hat "as the reaction, if an', of the accusedK *: She too5 out fro0 her poc5et the 0one' and handed it to the cashier. >>>> J: Dhen 'ou $ot bac5 to Mercur' Dru$, did 'ou i00ediatel' see5 out Miss SerranoK *: Fes, I "as as5ed b' the cashier, 2Lanino 5a bu0ili2 1fro0 "ho0 did 'ou bu'3 and I pointed to her. J: Dhat happened ne>tK *: She shouted, sa'in$ I a0 as5in$ for a receipt. J: Dho shoutedK *: The other cashier, then I pointed to Miss Serrano. J: Dhat did that cashier shout aboutK *: She said 24en', 'un$ recibo nun$ bu0ili sa 'o.2 14en', the receipt of the one "ho purchased fro0 'ou3.

J: Did 'ou notice "here "as 4enaida at that ti0e "hen the cashier shouted 24en' 'un$ recibo2K *: 6arther fro0 the cashier. J: Dhen 'ou heard M Did 'ou see the cashier shouted at 4enaidaK *: Fes, 0a0 ;sic<. J: *ll ri$ht, "hen this cashier shouted at 4enaida, did 'ou notice if 4enaida heard the shoutK *: Fes. J: Dhat happened ne>t after thatK *: She too5 the 0one' out fro0 her poc5et. J: Ho" did 'ou happen to see that, Mr. DitnessK *: I sa" 4enaida $ot the 0one' and $ave it to the cashier. #? 1C0phasis supplied3 Serrano8s act of poc5etin$ the pa'0ent and handin$ it to the cashier onl' after the custo0er returned to the branch $ave Mercur' reasonable $round to believe, if not entertain the 0oral conviction, that Serrano is $uilt' of dishonest'. This 0ade her un"orth' of the trust and confidence reposed on her b' Mercur'. #B 6urther, the evidence for the =ualified theft char$e, establishin$ probable cause after the preli0inar' investi$ation, constitutes Eust cause for Serrano8s ter0ination based on loss of trust and confidence. Dhile the trial court eventuall' dis0issed the theft case a$ainst Serrano for the prosecution8s failure to prove her $uilt be'ond reasonable doubt, the evidence a$ainst Serrano substantiall' proved her culpabilit' "arrantin$ her dis0issal fro0 e0plo'0ent.#7 Serrano8s act of dishonest' did not re=uire cri0inal conviction. #. That Serrano eventuall' re0itted the pa'0ent to the cashier did not obliterate or 0iti$ate her "ron$doin$. () The ourt reEects Serrano8s clai0 that Mercur' fra0ed her up. Serrano failed to present an' evidence to substantiate her defense of fra0e+up. (# Serrano clai0s that Mercur'8s 0otive for the 2fra0e+up2 and her dis0issal "as to 2ulti0atel' bust the union.2 (( Ho"ever, the char$es for unfair labor practice a$ainst Mercur' "ere dis0issed for lac5 of 0erit b' the /abor *rbiter. onse=uentl', Serrano8s alle$ation of unfair labor practice as Mercur'8s 0otive to fra0e her up 0ust fail. On the denial of due process In dis0issin$ an e0plo'ee, the e0plo'er 0ust serve the e0plo'ee t"o notices: 1#3 the first to infor0 the e0plo'ee of the particular acts or o0issions for "hich the e0plo'er see5s his dis0issal, and 1(3 the second to infor0 the e0plo'ee of his e0plo'er8s decision to ter0inate hi0. (% The first notice 0ust state that the e0plo'er see5s dis0issal for the act or o0ission char$ed a$ainst the e0plo'ee, other"ise, the notice does not co0pl' "ith the rules.(9 In Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc .,(- the ourt held that the first notice 0ust infor0 outri$ht the e0plo'ee that an investi$ation "ill be conducted on the char$es specified in such notice "hich, if proven, "ill result in the e0plo'ee8s dis0issal. The ourt e>plained the reason for this rule as follo"s: This notice "ill afford the e0plo'ee an opportunit' to avail all defenses and e>haust all re0edies to refute the alle$ations hurled a$ainst hi0 for "hat is at sta5e is his ver' life and li0b his e0plo'0ent. Other"ise, the e0plo'ee 0a' Eust disre$ard the notice as a "arnin$ "ithout an' disastrous conse=uence to be anticipated. *bsent such state0ent, the first notice falls short of the re=uire0ent of due process. One8s "or5 is ever'thin$, thus, it is not too e>actin$ to i0pose this strict re=uire0ent on the part of the e0plo'er before the dis0issal process be validl' effected. This is in consonance "ith the rule that all doubts in the i0ple0entation and interpretation of the provisions of the /abor ode, includin$ its i0ple0entin$ rules and re$ulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.(? In this case, Mercur' failed to satisf' the t"o+notice re=uire0ent. Mercur' ad0its it did not issue the first notice. Ho"ever, Mercur' ar$ues that if the purpose of the first notice "as achieved despite the absence of the first notice, and the e0plo'ee "as $iven a chance to air his side before his ter0ination, there is due process.(B Dhile Mercur' issued a notice on ## &anuar' #..( re=uestin$ Serrano to appear at the investi$ation, that notice did not infor0 Serrano of the specific offense char$ed a$ainst her and that the penalt' for the offense is dis0issal. That Mercur' conducted an

investi$ation and $ave Serrano a notice of ter0ination prior to Serrano8s dis0issal did not cure the absence of the first notice re=uired b' la". (7 In Agabon v. NL !,(. the ourt held that if the dis0issal "as for cause, the lac5 of statutor' due process should not nullif' the dis0issal, or render it ille$al or ineffectual. Ho"ever, Mercur'8s violation of Serrano8s ri$ht to statutor' due process "arrants the pa'0ent of inde0nit' %) in the for0 of no0inal da0a$es. The a0ount of such da0a$es is addressed to the sound discretion of the ourt, ta5in$ into account the relevant circu0stances.%#*ccordin$l', the ourt dee0s the a0ount of P%),))) sufficient as no0inal da0a$es, pursuant to prevailin$ Eurisprudence.%( DHCRC6ORC, the ourt P*RT/F ,R*NTS the petition. The ourt SCTS *SIDC the %# &anuar' ())% Decision and the (# October ())% Resolution of the ourt of *ppeals in *+,.R. SP No. -.#-(. The ourt upholds respondent 4enaida ,. Serrano8s dis0issal fro0 e0plo'0ent b' petitioner Mercur' Dru$ orporation on the $round of loss of trust and confidence. Ho"ever, the ourt ORDERS petitioner Mercur' Dru$ orporation to pa' respondent 4enaida ,. Serrano the a0ount of P%),))) as no0inal da0a$es for failure to co0pl' full' "ith the notice re=uire0ent as part of due process. No pronounce0ent as to costs. SO ORDCRCD. ANTONIO T. CARPIO *ssociate &ustice DC ON AR: LEONARDO A. UISUM!ING *ssociate &ustice hairperson CONC"ITA CARPIO MORALES *ssociate &ustice *TTC S T*TI O N DANTE O. TINGA *sscociate &ustice

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi$ned to the "riter of the opinion of the ourt8s Division. LEONARDO A. UISUM!ING *ssociate &ustice hairperson CRTI6I *TI O N Pursuant to Section #%, *rticle VIII of the onstitution, and the Division hairperson8s *ttestation, I certif' that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi$ned to the "riter of the opinion of the ourt8s Division. ARTEMIO #. PANGANI!AN hief &ustice