This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-20 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Records reveal that Carbonilla, Jr. occupied a position of trust and confidence as he was employed as Credit and Collection Manager, and later on, as Legal and Collection Manager, tasked with the duties of, among others, handling the credit and collection activities of the cooperative, which included recommending loan approvals, formulating and implementing credit and collection policies, and conducting trainings.[95] With such responsibilities, it is fairly evident that Carbonilla, Jr. is a managerial employee within the ambit of the first classification of employees afore-discussed. The loss of CPMPC's trust and confidence in Carbonilla, Jr., as imbued in that position, was later justified in light of the latter's commission of the following acts: (a) the forwarding of the mediation settlements for notarization to a lawyer who was not the authorized legal retainer of CPMPC (HRD 202 File 2008.07.09.103 dated July 9, 2008[96]); (b) the pull-out of important records and vital documents from the office premises, which were either lost or returned already tampered and altered (HRD 202 File 2008.07.15.106 dated July 15, 2008[97] and HRD 202 File 2008.07.19.111 dated July 19, 2008[98]); and (c) the incurring of unliquidated cash advances related to the notarial transactions of the mediation agreements (HRD 202 File 2008.07.16.107 dated July 16, 2008[99]). While Carbonilla, Jr. posited that these actuations were resorted with good intentions as he was only finding ways for CPMPC to save up on legal fees, this defense can hardly hold, considering that all of these transactions were not only highly irregular, but also done without the prior knowledge and consent of CPMPC's management. Cast against this light, Carbonilla, Jr.'s performance of the said acts therefore gives CPMPC more than enough reason to lose trust and confidence in him. To this, it must be emphasized that "employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the services of employees who perform functions by which their nature require the employer's full trust and confidence. Mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust and confidence of the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, when an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his employer has ample reason to distrust him, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to dismiss him,"[100] as in this case. | |||||
|
2015-08-03 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Philippine Plaza Holdings v. Episcope,[31] we discussed the requisites for valid dismissal on account of willful breach of trust:Among the just causes for termination is the employer's loss of trust and confidence in its employee. Article 296 (c) (formerly Article 282 [c]) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the services of an employee for fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in him. But in order for the said cause to be properly invoked, certain requirements must be complied with[,] namely[:] (1) the employee concerned 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.[32] | |||||
|
2014-11-12 |
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] | |||||
|
2014-04-07 |
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. | |||||
|
2013-12-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second, the employer must establish the existence of an act justifying the loss of trust and confidence.[33] To be a valid cause for dismissal, the act that betrays the employer's trust must be real, i.e., founded on clearly established facts,[34] and the employee's breach of the trust must be willful, i.e., it was done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse.[35] | |||||
|
2013-09-25 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Loss of trust and confidence will validate an employee's dismissal only upon compliance with certain requirements, namely: (1) the employee concerned 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.[30] | |||||