Lawyerly

GR No. 196597

2015-10-21

MODESTO W. RIVERA v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., 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.[22] Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts.[23]

GR No. 192582

2014-04-07

BLUER THAN BLUE JOINT VENTURES COMPANY v. GLYZA ESTEBAN

REYES, J.

In this case, Esteban was a sales clerk. Her duties, however, were more than that of a sales clerk. Aside from attending to customers and tending to the shop, Esteban also assumed cashiering duties. This, she does not deny; instead, she insists that the competency clause provided that her tasks were that of a sales clerk and the cashiering function was labelled "to follow."[22] A perusal of the competency clause, however, shows that it is merely an attestation on her part that she is competent to "meet the basic requirements needed for the position [she] is applying for x x x". It does not define her actual duties. As consistently ruled by the Court, it is not the job title but the actual work that the employee performs that determines whether he or she occupies a position of trust and confidence.[23] In Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope,[24] the Court ruled that a service attendant, who was tasked to attend to dining guests, handle their bills and receive payments for transmittal to the cashier and was therefore involved in the handling of company funds, is considered an employee occupying a position of trust and confidence. Similarly in Esteban's case, given that she had in her care and custody the store's property and funds, she is considered as a rank-and-file employee occupying a position of trust and confidence.

GR No. 170942

2013-08-28

COMSAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO

BERSAMIN, J.

Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties;[22] it is a negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[23] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[24]

GR No. 185335

2012-06-13

PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE v. NLRC

MENDOZA, J.

Thus, the first question to be addressed is whether Vallota held a position of trust and confidence. In previous cases, the following positions were classified under the second class of holders of positions of trust and confidence: a pharmaceutical company's district manager employed to handle pharmaceutical products for distribution to medical practitioners and sale to drug outlets,[34] a bank manager,[35] and an employee tasked with purchasing supplies and equipment.[36] The position of a contract claims assistant tasked with monitoring enforcement of contracts involving large sums of money was also classified to be analogous to this second class of holders of positions of trust and confidence.[37]

GR No. 194306

2012-02-06

SEBASTIAN F. OASAY v. PALACIO DEL GOBERNADOR CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

REYES, J.

In terminating the petitioner's employment, PDGCC invoked loss of trust and confidence. The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence. Verily, the Court must first determine if the petitioner holds such a position.[34]

GR No. 173774

2012-01-30

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MA. LUISA BELTRAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It should be emphasized at this point that the burden of proving the legality of an employee's dismissal lies with the employer.[26] "Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide legal justification for dismissing employees."[27] "[M]ere conjectures cannot work to deprive employees of their means of livelihood."[28] To begin with, MERALCO cannot claim or conclude that Beltran misappropriated the money based on mere suspicion. The NLRC thus erred in concluding that Beltran made use of the money from the mere fact that she took a leave of absence after having been reminded of the unremitted funds. And even if Beltran delayed handing over the funds to the company, MERALCO still has the burden of proof to show clearly that such act of negligence is sufficient to justify termination from employment. Moreover, we find that Beltran's delay does not clearly and convincingly establish a willful breach on her part, that is, which is done "intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without any justifiable excuse." True, the reasons Beltran proffered for her delay in remitting the cash payment are mere allegations without any concrete proof. Nonetheless, we emphasize that as the employer, the burden still lies on MERALCO to provide clear and convincing facts upon which the alleged loss of confidence is to be made to rest.

GR No. 163252

2011-07-27

ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. NLRC

BRION, J.

After a careful and objective study of the parties' submissions, we find that there is substantial evidence on record supporting Flores' dismissal. "Substantial evidence[, it must be stressed,] is more than a mere scintilla[. It means such] relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." [18]

GR No. 175251

2011-05-30

RODOLFO LUNA v. ALLADO CONSTRUCTION CO.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

With regard to the second assignment of error which essentially involves the determination of factual issues, we are reminded that, in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Court.[27] However, where the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, the Court, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[28]

GR No. 169564

2011-04-06

AMES BEN L. JERUSALEM v. KEPPEL MONTE BANK

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary."[27] Keppel's evidence against James fails to meet this standard.

GR No. 169260

2011-03-23

SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES v. LORESSA P. ROSALES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary."[35]

GR No. 171630

2010-08-08

CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION v. VICENTE RANDY R. RAMIL

PERALTA, J.

The right of an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground that it has lost its trust and confidence in him must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.[19]Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust[20] and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary.[21] It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whim, caprice or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[22]

	GR No. 196597 2015-10-21	MODESTO W. RIVERA v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., 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.[22] Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts.[23]
	GR No. 192582 2014-04-07	BLUER THAN BLUE JOINT VENTURES COMPANY v. GLYZA ESTEBAN REYES, J.
In this case, Esteban was a sales clerk. Her duties, however, were more than that of a sales clerk. Aside from attending to customers and tending to the shop, Esteban also assumed cashiering duties. This, she does not deny; instead, she insists that the competency clause provided that her tasks were that of a sales clerk and the cashiering function was labelled "to follow."[22] A perusal of the competency clause, however, shows that it is merely an attestation on her part that she is competent to "meet the basic requirements needed for the position [she] is applying for x x x". It does not define her actual duties. As consistently ruled by the Court, it is not the job title but the actual work that the employee performs that determines whether he or she occupies a position of trust and confidence.[23] In Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Episcope,[24] the Court ruled that a service attendant, who was tasked to attend to dining guests, handle their bills and receive payments for transmittal to the cashier and was therefore involved in the handling of company funds, is considered an employee occupying a position of trust and confidence. Similarly in Esteban's case, given that she had in her care and custody the store's property and funds, she is considered as a rank-and-file employee occupying a position of trust and confidence.
	GR No. 170942 2013-08-28	COMSAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO BERSAMIN, J.
Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties;[22] it is a negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[23] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[24]
	GR No. 185335 2012-06-13	PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
Thus, the first question to be addressed is whether Vallota held a position of trust and confidence. In previous cases, the following positions were classified under the second class of holders of positions of trust and confidence: a pharmaceutical company's district manager employed to handle pharmaceutical products for distribution to medical practitioners and sale to drug outlets,[34] a bank manager,[35] and an employee tasked with purchasing supplies and equipment.[36] The position of a contract claims assistant tasked with monitoring enforcement of contracts involving large sums of money was also classified to be analogous to this second class of holders of positions of trust and confidence.[37]
	GR No. 194306 2012-02-06	SEBASTIAN F. OASAY v. PALACIO DEL GOBERNADOR CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION REYES, J.
In terminating the petitioner's employment, PDGCC invoked loss of trust and confidence. The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence. Verily, the Court must first determine if the petitioner holds such a position.[34]
	GR No. 173774 2012-01-30	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MA. LUISA BELTRAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
It should be emphasized at this point that the burden of proving the legality of an employee's dismissal lies with the employer.[26] "Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide legal justification for dismissing employees."[27] "[M]ere conjectures cannot work to deprive employees of their means of livelihood."[28] To begin with, MERALCO cannot claim or conclude that Beltran misappropriated the money based on mere suspicion. The NLRC thus erred in concluding that Beltran made use of the money from the mere fact that she took a leave of absence after having been reminded of the unremitted funds. And even if Beltran delayed handing over the funds to the company, MERALCO still has the burden of proof to show clearly that such act of negligence is sufficient to justify termination from employment. Moreover, we find that Beltran's delay does not clearly and convincingly establish a willful breach on her part, that is, which is done "intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without any justifiable excuse." True, the reasons Beltran proffered for her delay in remitting the cash payment are mere allegations without any concrete proof. Nonetheless, we emphasize that as the employer, the burden still lies on MERALCO to provide clear and convincing facts upon which the alleged loss of confidence is to be made to rest.
	GR No. 163252 2011-07-27	ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. NLRC BRION, J.
After a careful and objective study of the parties' submissions, we find that there is substantial evidence on record supporting Flores' dismissal. "Substantial evidence[, it must be stressed,] is more than a mere scintilla[. It means such] relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." [18]
	GR No. 175251 2011-05-30	RODOLFO LUNA v. ALLADO CONSTRUCTION CO. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
With regard to the second assignment of error which essentially involves the determination of factual issues, we are reminded that, in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Court.[27] However, where the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, the Court, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[28]
	GR No. 169564 2011-04-06	AMES BEN L. JERUSALEM v. KEPPEL MONTE BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
"The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary."[27] Keppel's evidence against James fails to meet this standard.
	GR No. 169260 2011-03-23	SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES v. LORESSA P. ROSALES DEL CASTILLO, J.
"The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary."[35]
	GR No. 171630 2010-08-08	CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION v. VICENTE RANDY R. RAMIL PERALTA, J.
The right of an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground that it has lost its trust and confidence in him must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.[19]Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust[20] and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary.[21] It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whim, caprice or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[22]

ABELARDO P. ABEL v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION