Waterous Drug Corporation vs.

NLRC
G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997

FACTS:
Waterous Drug Corporation hired Catolico as a pharmacist.
YSP Inc. sold ten (10) bottles of Voren tablets at P384.00 per unit to Catolico. However, previous
purchased orders showed that the price per bottle is P320.00 and not at P384.00. But WDRC still paid the
amount of P3,840.00 for the 10 bottles of Voren tablets. In order to determine if there is discrepancy, they
conducted a verification to the YSP Inc. and it was found that the cost of a bottle is overpriced of P64 per
bottle. The Accounting Department confirmed that the check for the refund of the overpriced 10 bottles
were addressed to Catolico. But Catolico denied that she received the said check and that she did not
know that the medicines are overpriced. However, Saldana contradicted Catolicos statement confirming
that the check was received by Catolico as the latter asked Saldana if she opened the envelope.
Because of the irregularity done by Catolico, she was placed on a preventive suspension on Feb. 6 to
March 7, 1990. But before that, she was granted the right to explain her side. She made letters stating that
Saldaas invaded her privacy when the latter opened the envelope addressed to her. She also explained that
the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift and not a refund of overprice. She also alleged that
the preventive suspension was ill-motivated, as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and Cos
secretary, Irene Soliven.
However, despite of her evidences, she was still placed under preventive suspension due to her acts of
dishonesty.
Catolico filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension before the
Office of the Labor Arbiter. Labor Arbiter Alex Lopez decided in favor of Catolico because the dismissal
was without just cause and due process.
Petitioners appealed from the decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. But NLRC
dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter on the ground of lack
of just cause and evidence to prove the dismissal of Catolico. The check was considered inadmissible in
evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution.
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari on the grounds that (1.) Catolico committed grave
abuse of discretion in its findings of facts; (2) due process was duly accorded to Catolico; and (3.) public
respondent gravely erred in applying Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE:

RULING: