Saturday, November 18, 2006 Supervisory responsibility By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
Petitioner Vicente C. Etcuban Jr. was employed by respondent Sulpicio Lines Inc., as chief purser of one of its vessels, the M/V Surigao Princess.
In a surprise inspection, it was discovered that several yellow class passenger’s duplicate of yet-to-be-sold, or unissued passage tickets, already contained the amount of P88 – the fare for adult passengers for the Cagayan de Oro to Jagna, Bohol route.
In a case for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner, he maintained that other employees could have filled up the ticket in question and that the handwriting on it was not proven to be his. Was there merit to the contention?
Ruling: No.
The requirement that there be some basis or reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct was sufficiently met in the case at bar. As chief purser, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance on the irregularity as he had custody of the tickets when the anomaly was discovered.
It would not be amiss to suppose that the petitioner, who would benefit directly or indirectly from the fruits of such fraudulent scheme, was a party to such irregularity. That there were other pursers who could have done the irregularity is of no moment.
It bears stressing that the petitioner was the chief purser, who was tasked to directly supervise each and every pursuer under him.
While, indeed, it was not proved that he was the one who made the irregular entries on the tickets, the fact that he did not lift a finger at all to determine who it was, is a sad reflection of his job. In fact, even if the petitioner had no actual and direct participation in the alleged anomalies, his failure to detect any anomaly in the passage tickets amounts to gross negligence and incompetence, which are, likewise, justifiable grounds for his dismissal.
Be that as it may, to our mind, it is no longer necessary to prove the petitioner’s direct participation in the irregularity, for what is material is that his actuations were more than sufficient to sow in his employer the seed of mistrust and loss of confidence.
(Vicente C. Etcuban Jr. versus Sulpicio Lines Inc. G.R. No. 148410, Jan. 17, 2005).
