Lawyerly

GR No. 185255

2012-03-14

NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS v. DELFIN S. DESCALLAR

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for termination of an employee under Article 282[18] of the Labor Code requires that the breach of trust be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse.[19] The basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is that the employees concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. It is the breach of this trust that results in the employer's loss of confidence in the employee.

GR No. 149433

2011-06-22

COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION v. VS.CLARITA P. GACAYAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It has oft been held that loss of confidence should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper and unjustified. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith. It bears stressing that what is at stake here are the sole means of livelihood, the name and the reputation of the employee. [10]

GR No. 169260

2011-03-23

SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES v. LORESSA P. ROSALES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Settled is the rule that under Article 282(c), the breach of trust must be willful. Ordinary breach will not suffice. "A breach is willful if it is done intentionally and knowingly without any justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly or inadvertently."[30]

GR No. 182299

2010-02-22

WILFREDO M. BARON v. NLRC

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

They are also grounds for loss of trust and confidence under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended. For there to be a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the breach of trust must be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse. [32] The basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is that the employees concerned hold a position of trust and confidence. It is the breach of this trust that results in the employer's loss of confidence in the employee. In the instant case, we note that petitioners were holding the following positions: Wilfredo Baron - operations manager, Jomar dela Rosa and Jefferson dela Rosa - sales representatives, Cynthia Junatas and Marife Ballesca - accounting clerks, and Lourdes Rabago - warehouse checker. Clearly, petitioners were holding positions imbued with trust and confidence, which are deemed to have been reposed on them by virtue of the nature of their work.

GR No. 168910

2009-08-24

REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. PETER I. GUINMAPANG

CARPIO, J.

Indeed the prevailing trend is to accord party litigants the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of their causes, free from the constraints of needless technicalities.[17]

GR No. 183196

2009-08-19

CHONA ESTACIO v. PAMPANGA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As for respondent Engr. Allas' authority to file the same Petition on behalf of respondent PELCO I, it is evidenced by Board Resolution No. 53-06,[37] approved by the Board of Directors of the cooperative on 5 August 2006. Even though Board Resolution No. 53-06 was belatedly filed, the Court of Appeals rightfully accepted the same. In the present case, the findings and conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are at odds, and the case concerns a labor matter to which our fundamental law mandates the state to give utmost priority and full protection.[38] Necessarily, this Court will look beyond alleged technicalities to open the way for resolution of substantive issues.[39]

GR No. 153983

2009-05-26

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NLRC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Petitioner cites Article 282[18] of the Labor Code, specifically loss of trust and confidence as the ground for validly dismissing respondent. Under the law, loss of confidence must be based on "fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative." In this regard, the Court has ruled that ordinary breach does not suffice.[19] A breach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without any justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[20]

GR No. 160965

2008-07-21

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARIA NYMPHA MANDAGAN

NACHURA, J.

Loss of trust and confidence as a ground of dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper, and unjustified. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought intended to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith. Let it not be forgotten that what is at stake is the means of livelihood, the name, and the reputation of the employee. To countenance an arbitrary exercise of that prerogative is to negate the employee's constitutional right to security of tenure.[29]

GR NO. 162871

2007-01-31

NORSK HYDRO v. BENJAMIN S. ROSALES

QUISUMBING, J.

It should also be stressed that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss of trust and confidence on the responsible officer. It is sufficient that there be some basis for the same, or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct, and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded of his position.[11] Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states, however, that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[12] More specifically the loss of trust must be founded on clearly established facts.

GR NO. 148544

2006-07-12

FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In addition, the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[16] Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[17] Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.[18] And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[19] In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence[20] or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[21] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[22]

	GR No. 185255 2012-03-14	NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS v. DELFIN S. DESCALLAR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for termination of an employee under Article 282[18] of the Labor Code requires that the breach of trust be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse.[19] The basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is that the employees concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. It is the breach of this trust that results in the employer's loss of confidence in the employee.
	GR No. 149433 2011-06-22	COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION v. VS.CLARITA P. GACAYAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It has oft been held that loss of confidence should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper and unjustified. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith. It bears stressing that what is at stake here are the sole means of livelihood, the name and the reputation of the employee. [10]
	GR No. 169260 2011-03-23	SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES v. LORESSA P. ROSALES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Settled is the rule that under Article 282(c), the breach of trust must be willful. Ordinary breach will not suffice. "A breach is willful if it is done intentionally and knowingly without any justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly or inadvertently."[30]
	GR No. 182299 2010-02-22	WILFREDO M. BARON v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
They are also grounds for loss of trust and confidence under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended. For there to be a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the breach of trust must be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse. [32] The basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is that the employees concerned hold a position of trust and confidence. It is the breach of this trust that results in the employer's loss of confidence in the employee. In the instant case, we note that petitioners were holding the following positions: Wilfredo Baron - operations manager, Jomar dela Rosa and Jefferson dela Rosa - sales representatives, Cynthia Junatas and Marife Ballesca - accounting clerks, and Lourdes Rabago - warehouse checker. Clearly, petitioners were holding positions imbued with trust and confidence, which are deemed to have been reposed on them by virtue of the nature of their work.
	GR No. 168910 2009-08-24	REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. PETER I. GUINMAPANG CARPIO, J.
Indeed the prevailing trend is to accord party litigants the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of their causes, free from the constraints of needless technicalities.[17]
	GR No. 183196 2009-08-19	CHONA ESTACIO v. PAMPANGA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As for respondent Engr. Allas' authority to file the same Petition on behalf of respondent PELCO I, it is evidenced by Board Resolution No. 53-06,[37] approved by the Board of Directors of the cooperative on 5 August 2006. Even though Board Resolution No. 53-06 was belatedly filed, the Court of Appeals rightfully accepted the same. In the present case, the findings and conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are at odds, and the case concerns a labor matter to which our fundamental law mandates the state to give utmost priority and full protection.[38] Necessarily, this Court will look beyond alleged technicalities to open the way for resolution of substantive issues.[39]
	GR No. 153983 2009-05-26	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NLRC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioner cites Article 282[18] of the Labor Code, specifically loss of trust and confidence as the ground for validly dismissing respondent. Under the law, loss of confidence must be based on "fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative." In this regard, the Court has ruled that ordinary breach does not suffice.[19] A breach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without any justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[20]
	GR No. 160965 2008-07-21	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARIA NYMPHA MANDAGAN NACHURA, J.
Loss of trust and confidence as a ground of dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper, and unjustified. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought intended to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith. Let it not be forgotten that what is at stake is the means of livelihood, the name, and the reputation of the employee. To countenance an arbitrary exercise of that prerogative is to negate the employee's constitutional right to security of tenure.[29]
	GR NO. 162871 2007-01-31	NORSK HYDRO v. BENJAMIN S. ROSALES QUISUMBING, J.
It should also be stressed that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss of trust and confidence on the responsible officer. It is sufficient that there be some basis for the same, or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct, and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded of his position.[11] Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states, however, that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[12] More specifically the loss of trust must be founded on clearly established facts.
	GR NO. 148544 2006-07-12	FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In addition, the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[16] Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[17] Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.[18] And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[19] In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence[20] or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[21] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[22]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. ROLANDO MATIAS*