Waterous Drug Corporation vs Nlrc

WATEROUS DRUG CORPORATION vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FACTS: Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corporation and was stationed at their Espana branch. In 1990, Waterous Control Clerk Valdez informed their VP-GM Emma Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. wherein medicine purchased under one purchase order representing purchase of 10 bottles of Voren Tablets was at P384 per unit. However, previous purchase orders issued to Yung Shin showed that the price per bottle was only P320 showing an overpriced discrepancy of P64 per bottle or a total of P640. Yung Shin's Accounting Department confirmed that the difference represents a refund of the overpriced 10 bottles of Voren tablets which was paid to Catolico through a China Bank check. Valdez talked to Catolico regarding the check but she denied having received it and that she is unaware of the overprice. However, a pharmacy clerk named Saldana confirmed that the check amounting to P640 was actually received by Catolico. As a matter of fact, Catolico even asked Saldana if she opened the envelope containing the check but Saldana answered her "talagang ganyan, bukas." It appears to her that the amount in question P640 had been pocketed by Catolico. Catolico was later on informed that she would be placed on preventive suspension to protect the interests of the company. Subsequently, Catolico requested access to the sales invoice in question for her to be able to make a satisfactory explanation. She protested Saldana's invasion of her privacy when Saldana opened an envelope addressed to Catolico.

Catolico, explained that the check she received from Yung Shin was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of overprice." She also averred that the preventive suspension was illmotivated, as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and VP-GM Co's secretary. On March 1990, Bautro issued a memorandum notifying Catolico of her termination stating that her receipt of a check from Yung Shin, which was actually representing the refund of the over pricing of medicines and that her actions constitute an act of dishonesty detrimental to the interest of the company. Catolico thereafter filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension before the Office of the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Catolico because Waterous failed to prove what they alleged as Catolico's dishonesty. Waterous appealed from the decision, however the NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter. It found that Waterous evidence consisted only of the check of P640 drawn by Yung Shin in favor of Catolico, which Saldana saw when she opened the envelope. But it declared that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the Bill of Rights: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding." Catolico asserts that Waterous' evidence is too flimsy to justify her dismissal. The check in issue was given to her, and she had no duty to turn it over to her employer. Company rules do not prohibit an employee from accepting gifts from clients, and there is no indication in the contentious check that it was meant as a refund for overpriced medicines. Besides, the check was discovered in violation of the constitutional provision on the right to privacy and communication; hence, it was inadmissible in evidence. Waterous' motion for reconsideration was also denied thus filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the check in question was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the provisions of the Bill of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures HELD: No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the NLRC, except the ground that the evidence against Catolico was inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of her constitutional rights of privacy of communication and against unreasonable searches and seizures. In light of the decision in People vs Marti, the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of one's person from interference by government and cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. The incident involving the opening of the envelope addressed to Catolico does not warrant the application of the constitutional provisions. There was no violation of the right of privacy

of communication in this case, and Waterous was justified in opening an envelope from one of its regular suppliers as it could assume that the letter was a business communication in which it had an interest. The Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals. It is not true, as Catolico claims, that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. By: EBINA, Maria Luisa F.