Lawyerly

GR No. 205575

2015-07-22

VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Delving now into the merits of Mahilum's dismissal, the Court holds that the two requisites for a valid dismissal from employment have been met, namely: (1) it must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded due process.[70]

GR No. 198620

2014-11-12

P.J. LHUILLIER v. FLORDELIZ VELAYO

REYES, J.

In order that an employer may invoke loss of trust and confidence in terminating an employee under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, certain requirements must be complied with, namely: (1) the employee must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.[18] While loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, it does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt,[19] it being sufficient that there is some basis to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of the employee's participation therein rendered him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[20]

GR No. 176184

2012-06-13

ROMEO E. PAULINO v. NLRC

SERENO, J.

To warrant dismissal based on loss of confidence, there must be some basis for the loss of trust or the employer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the employee is responsible for misconduct that renders the latter unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his or her position.[24] Here, petitioner disputes the sufficiency of PLDT's basis for loss of trust and confidence. He alleges that he did not steal the plant materials, considering that he had lawful possession.[25]

GR No. 169564

2011-04-06

AMES BEN L. JERUSALEM v. KEPPEL MONTE BANK

DEL CASTILLO, J.

While it is true that loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes for termination, such loss of trust and confidence must, however, have some basis. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. It is sufficient that there must only be some basis for such loss of confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe, if not to entertain, the moral conviction that the concerned employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[26]

GR No. 169260

2011-03-23

SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES v. LORESSA P. ROSALES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

While it is true that loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes for termination, such loss of trust and confidence must, however, have some basis. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. It is sufficient that there must only be some basis for such loss of confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe if not to entertain the moral conviction that the concerned employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[34]

GR No. 166554

2008-11-27

JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION

REYES, R.T., J.

We stress that the quantum of proof required for the application of the loss of trust and confidence rule is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that there must only be some basis for the loss of trust and confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe, if not to entertain the moral conviction, that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that his participation in the misconduct rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence.[59]

GR NO. 152232

2007-02-26

GREG ANTHONY L. CAÑEDA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

CORONA, J.

Article 282 of the Labor Code allows an employer to dismiss an employee for willful breach of trust or loss of confidence. The basic premise for dismissal on this ground is that the employee concerned holds a position of trust.[6]

GR NO. 169464

2006-08-31

ROQUE D.A. DATOR v. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Moreover, we find that petitioner was not denied due process. It is settled that due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.[18] In this case, respondents informed petitioner that his teaching load would be reduced as he was working full-time with the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner asked for reconsideration twice. His first request was granted and he was given an additional load of three units for School Year 2000-2001. For School Year 2001-2002, petitioner again requested an additional load of three units but was denied.

GR NO. 160509

2006-03-10

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. ZENAIDA G. SERRANO

CARPIO, J.

Loss of trust and confidence, which should be genuine, does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. [12] In this case, Mercury alleges that Serrano committed dishonesty by pocketing the P120 payment of one of its customers during an entrapment initiated by Mercury Recto-Soler Branch Manager Mateo.

GR NO. 154315

2005-05-09

PHILIPPINE PIZZA v. KIM M. BUNGABONG

QUISUMBING, J.

In termination cases, the settled rule is that the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer.[20] But just as the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC is not bound to observe the strict technicalities enforced in courts of law, an employer is not required to prove the existence of just cause beyond reasonable doubt.[21] Termination of an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is allowed so long as there is basis for the loss of trust or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct that rendered him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[22] In this regard, the employer must establish clearly and convincingly by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which the loss of trust and confidence in the employee may fairly be made to rest.[23]

GR NO. 154308

2005-03-10

BERNARDINO A. CAINGAT v. NLRC

QUISUMBING, J.

As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. This includes managerial personnel entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property.[25] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[26]

GR No. 148105

2004-07-22

FRANCISCO REYNO v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Petitioner, in insisting that his employment should not be terminated, invokes his 19 years of service in respondent company. In Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Macaraeg,[8] we held that "the longer an employee stays in the service of the company, the greater is his responsibility for knowledge and compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of discipline in the company." On a similar note, our ruling in United South Dockhandlers, Inc. vs. NLRC[9] is quite explicit, thus: "An employee's length of service with the company even aggravates his offense. He should have been more loyal to petitioner company from which he has derived his family bread and butter for seventeen (17) years." WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated January 17, 2001 and Resolution dated May 3, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53987 are hereby AFFIRMED.

GR No. 149416

2003-03-14

CARMELITA V. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Under the Labor Code, a valid dismissal from employment requires that: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code and (2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[25] Article 282(c) of the same Code provides that "willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer" is a cause for the termination of employment by an employer.[26] This ground should be duly established.[27] Substantial evidence is sufficient as long as such loss of confidence is well-founded or if the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and her act rendered her unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of her position.[28] It must be shown, though, that the employee concerned holds a position of trust.[29] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[30]

	GR No. 205575 2015-07-22	VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Delving now into the merits of Mahilum's dismissal, the Court holds that the two requisites for a valid dismissal from employment have been met, namely: (1) it must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded due process.[70]
	GR No. 198620 2014-11-12	P.J. LHUILLIER v. FLORDELIZ VELAYO REYES, J.
In order that an employer may invoke loss of trust and confidence in terminating an employee under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, certain requirements must be complied with, namely: (1) the employee must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.[18] While loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, it does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt,[19] it being sufficient that there is some basis to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of the employee's participation therein rendered him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[20]
	GR No. 176184 2012-06-13	ROMEO E. PAULINO v. NLRC SERENO, J.
To warrant dismissal based on loss of confidence, there must be some basis for the loss of trust or the employer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the employee is responsible for misconduct that renders the latter unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his or her position.[24] Here, petitioner disputes the sufficiency of PLDT's basis for loss of trust and confidence. He alleges that he did not steal the plant materials, considering that he had lawful possession.[25]
	GR No. 169564 2011-04-06	AMES BEN L. JERUSALEM v. KEPPEL MONTE BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
While it is true that loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes for termination, such loss of trust and confidence must, however, have some basis. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. It is sufficient that there must only be some basis for such loss of confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe, if not to entertain, the moral conviction that the concerned employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[26]
	GR No. 169260 2011-03-23	SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES v. LORESSA P. ROSALES DEL CASTILLO, J.
While it is true that loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes for termination, such loss of trust and confidence must, however, have some basis. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. It is sufficient that there must only be some basis for such loss of confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe if not to entertain the moral conviction that the concerned employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[34]
	GR No. 166554 2008-11-27	JULITO SAGALES v. RUSTAN'S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
We stress that the quantum of proof required for the application of the loss of trust and confidence rule is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that there must only be some basis for the loss of trust and confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe, if not to entertain the moral conviction, that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that his participation in the misconduct rendered him absolutely unworthy of trust and confidence.[59]
	GR NO. 152232 2007-02-26	GREG ANTHONY L. CAÑEDA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CORONA, J.
Article 282 of the Labor Code allows an employer to dismiss an employee for willful breach of trust or loss of confidence. The basic premise for dismissal on this ground is that the employee concerned holds a position of trust.[6]
	GR NO. 169464 2006-08-31	ROQUE D.A. DATOR v. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, we find that petitioner was not denied due process. It is settled that due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.[18] In this case, respondents informed petitioner that his teaching load would be reduced as he was working full-time with the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner asked for reconsideration twice. His first request was granted and he was given an additional load of three units for School Year 2000-2001. For School Year 2001-2002, petitioner again requested an additional load of three units but was denied.
	GR NO. 160509 2006-03-10	MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. ZENAIDA G. SERRANO CARPIO, J.
Loss of trust and confidence, which should be genuine, does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. [12] In this case, Mercury alleges that Serrano committed dishonesty by pocketing the P120 payment of one of its customers during an entrapment initiated by Mercury Recto-Soler Branch Manager Mateo.
	GR NO. 154315 2005-05-09	PHILIPPINE PIZZA v. KIM M. BUNGABONG QUISUMBING, J.
In termination cases, the settled rule is that the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer.[20] But just as the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC is not bound to observe the strict technicalities enforced in courts of law, an employer is not required to prove the existence of just cause beyond reasonable doubt.[21] Termination of an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is allowed so long as there is basis for the loss of trust or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct that rendered him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[22] In this regard, the employer must establish clearly and convincingly by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which the loss of trust and confidence in the employee may fairly be made to rest.[23]
	GR NO. 154308 2005-03-10	BERNARDINO A. CAINGAT v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. This includes managerial personnel entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property.[25] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[26]
	GR No. 148105 2004-07-22	FRANCISCO REYNO v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioner, in insisting that his employment should not be terminated, invokes his 19 years of service in respondent company. In Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Macaraeg,[8] we held that "the longer an employee stays in the service of the company, the greater is his responsibility for knowledge and compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of discipline in the company." On a similar note, our ruling in United South Dockhandlers, Inc. vs. NLRC[9] is quite explicit, thus: "An employee's length of service with the company even aggravates his offense. He should have been more loyal to petitioner company from which he has derived his family bread and butter for seventeen (17) years." WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated January 17, 2001 and Resolution dated May 3, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53987 are hereby AFFIRMED.
	GR No. 149416 2003-03-14	CARMELITA V. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Under the Labor Code, a valid dismissal from employment requires that: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code and (2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[25] Article 282(c) of the same Code provides that "willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer" is a cause for the termination of employment by an employer.[26] This ground should be duly established.[27] Substantial evidence is sufficient as long as such loss of confidence is well-founded or if the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and her act rendered her unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of her position.[28] It must be shown, though, that the employee concerned holds a position of trust.[29] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[30]

CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. GERONIMA MACARAEG