Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Tag: 2020-11

  • We Were Told That Our Employment Was Terminated

    The employer owned a restaurant and employed Efren and Jeramil as cooks.

    Efren claimed that on December 25, 2011 he rendered only a half day work without prior authorization. Jeramil, in turn, claimed that he did not report for work.

    Efren and Jeramil claimed that because of their attendance on December 25, their employer dismissed them from employment. They averred that when they tried to report for work, their chief cook told them that their employment was already terminated.

    Efren and Jeramil filed their complaint for illegal dismissal against the employer.

    The employer denied dismissing Efren and Jeramil from work. She argued that Efren and Jeramil violated a December 22, 2011 memorandum which disallowed absences on December 25, 26, 31 and January 1 unless justified. The employer added that Efren and Jeramil failed to report for work on December 25, 2011, and returned the following day merely to get their share in the accrued tips, after which they went on absence without leave (AWOL) for the rest of the Christmas season.

    The employer argued that Efren and Jeramil went on AWOL and abandoned their employment after they got wind of her decision to impose disciplinary action against them for their unauthorized absence on December 25, 2011. She claimed that even before any disciplinary action could be imposed on Efren and Jeramil, the latter already filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on January 2, 2012.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter found that Efren and Jeramil were illegally dismissed from employment. According to the said Office, the employer failed to prove that Efren and Jeramil indeed went on AWOL and that they received a copy of the December 22, 2011 memorandum. The said Office added that since it was Christmas day, Efren and Jeramil had all the reason not to report for work. Finally, the Office of the Labor Arbiter stated that in any case, the absence of Efren and Jeramil on December 25, 2011 should not have warranted their dismissal from employment. Efren and Jeramil were awarded separation pay and backwages.

    The National Labor Relations Commission found that Efren and Jeramil were unable to establish that they were dismissed from employment. The Commission also found that Efren and Jeramil went to the restaurant and received their share on tips on December 26, 2011, then they continued to be absent for the rest of the Christmas season. The Commission held that since Efren and Jeramil failed to prove that their employment was terminated, the complaint for illegal dismissal could not be sustained. Thus, the Commission deleted the awards of separation pay and backwages to Efren and Jeramil.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Commission.

    Were Efren and Jeramil illegally dismissed from employment?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.

    The Court reiterated established principles as follows:

    In cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. But before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, it is well-settled that the employees must first establish by substantial evidence that indeed they were dismissed. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.1Claudia’s Kitchen, Inc. v. Tanguin, G.R. No. 221096, June 28, 2017.

    In the present case, the Court found no substantial evidence establishing the fact that Efren and Jeramil were dismissed from employment. According to the Court, Efren and Jeramil merely alleged that the chief cook of the employer informed them of their dismissal from employment and that they were barred from entering the restaurant, without offering any evidence to prove the same. The Court added that Efren and Jeramil failed to provide any document, notice of termination or even any letter or correspondence regarding their termination. Said the Court, aside from their bare allegations, they did not present any proof which would at least indicate that they were in fact dismissed.

    The Court instead found that through their timecards, Efren and Jeramil failed to report on December 25, 2011. Through the sign-up sheets, it was shown that they went back to their workplace on the following day merely to get their share in the tips. And through their admission, Efren and Jeramil confirmed that they continued to be on AWOL during “the Christmas season of 2011.

    The Court thus upheld the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that no illegal dismissal occurred in this case. Said the Court: “Without substantial evidence that Efren and Jeramil were indeed dismissed, it is futile to determine the legality or illegality of their supposed dismissal.”2Villola v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 230047, October 9, 2019.

    The Court clarified that the employer was not correct in insisting on Efren and Jeramil’s abandonment of employment. The Court stated that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts.3Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017. The employer must prove that first, the employee failed to report for work for an unjustifiable reason, and second, the overt acts showing the employee’s clear intention to sever their ties with their employer.4Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017.

    In the present case, the Court did not find proof that the absence of Efren and Jeramil was due to unjustifiable reasons, or that they clearly intended to terminate their employment. The Court stressed that Efren and Jeramil’s act of pre-empting their disciplinary action was insufficient, since “the operative act is still the employees’ ultimate act of putting an end to their employment.”5Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017.

    The Court mentioned that “in cases where there is both an absence of illegal dismissal on the part of the employer and an absence of abandonment on the part of the employees, the remedy is reinstatement but without backwages.”6Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017. However, the Court added that since Efren and Jeramil did not pray for such relief, “each party must bear [their] own loss,” placing them on equal footing.7Pu-od v. Ablaze Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017. For the Court the deletion of the award of separation pay was proper.

    Further reading:

    • Santos, Jr. v. King Chef, G.R. No. 211073, November 25, 2020.

  • Judicious Admission of Evidence on Appeal

    Sheila was a sales clerk at Marivin’s Boutique and Merchandise outlet in La Union.

    Sheila claimed that on February 6, 2007, she was summarily dismissed from employment without just cause and due process. Hence, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Marivin.

    Marivin denied illegally dismissing Sheila. She contended that despite infractions amounting to breach of trust and confidence, Sheila was never terminated from the service and had instead abandoned her work.

    The Office of the Executive Labor Arbiter declared that Sheila was illegally dismissed from employment and that she did not abandon her work since she even reported for work on February 6, 2007 despite the fact that her notice of termination was already posted in the premises of the outlet. Said Office also found that Sheila was not accorded procedural due process, as Marivin did not conduct any notice or investigation and did not allow her to explain her side. Thus, the Office of the Executive Labor Arbiter awarded Sheila backwages and separation pay.

    Marivin appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission and mentioned the following infractions committed by Sheila:

    • Failure to issue receipts for payments made by the clients of the boutique;
    • Listing of certain fully-paid customers as having uncollected payments;
    • Borrowing of money from business clients and offsetting her loan against the receivables of the business from said clients;
    • Failure to reflect in the inventory a total of 3,945 items amounting to P396,728.00;
    • Failure to remit cash paid by customers totalling P62,875.00; and
    • Failure to explain missing items amounting to P224,699.00.

    Marivin added that Sheila simply left the key to the outlet and never came back.

    Marivin stated that she initiated a complaint with the local police authorities wherein Sheila was invited to explain. Sheila appeared but failed to identify the customers whom she reported to have availed of items on credit.

    Marivin contended that there was no illegal dismissal to speak of. Marivin argued that there was sufficient evidence that Sheila committed serious misconduct resulting in loss of trust and confidence. According to Marivin, the Office of the Executive Labor Arbiter failed to appreciate affidavits of customers, Sheila’s promissory note, and inventory ledgers duly signed by Sheila, which all established her serious misconduct warranting her dismissal from employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

    The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed Marivin’s appeal for lack of merit.

    The Commission pointed out that it could not entertain Marivin’s allegations that Sheila committed acts of serious misconduct since Marivin was not allowed to change her theory on appeal, i.e., from abandonment of work to a valid dismissal.

    The Commission noted that no inventory ledgers allegedly signed by Sheila were presented for the Office of the Executive Labor Arbiter’s consideration. Also, the Commission found no proof that Sheila was responsible for the missing stocks.

    The Commission also noted discrepancies between the alleged amount lost as presented by Marivin. It even found that Sheila was on leave during the period when Marivin supposedly incurred losses, which cast doubt on the veracity of the audit report.

    In addition, the Commission noticed that the copies of order receipts allegedly issued by Sheila to fictitious persons did not bear her signature while some bore only her printed name.

    Finally, the Commission disregarded the itemized list of lost stocks with the first page bearing Sheila’s signature because it was belatedly submitted only in Marivin’s motion for reconsideration.

    The Court of Appeals ruled that Marivin did not change her theory on appeal and that the allegation of “loss of trust and confidence” as a ground for Sheila’s termination was raised as an issue before the Office of the Executive Labor Arbiter.

    The Court of Appeals found that in Marivin’s Position Paper, the theory of “loss of trust and confidence” was alluded to when Marivin presented the inventory conducted by the bookkeeper showing that various stocks were missing under Sheila’s custody. The Court of Appeals further found that Marivin did not confine her arguments to “abandonment” and that she emphasized Sheila’s violation of business policies.

    Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that the National Labor Relations Commission is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Thus, the Court of Appeals stated that even if the evidence was not submitted before the Office of the Executive Labor Arbiter, due introduction of evidence before the Commission should merit its admission in keeping with fairness and equity.

    The Court of Appeals then ruled that there was just cause for Sheila’s dismissal, i.e., loss of trust and confidence. It noted that Marivin established by substantial evidence the following infractions committed by Sheila:

    • appropriation for her personal use daily sales amounting to P6,025.00;
    • losing various stocks under her care; and
    • issuing items to fictitious customers.

    The Court of Appeals explained that as a sales clerk, Sheila occupied a position of trust and confidence since she was tasked to handle the stocks/inventory and funds of the business.

    Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals highlighted the failure of Marivin to notify Sheila of her infractions and give her a chance to explain. Sheila was awarded nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00.

    Incidentally, record showed that Sheila died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by her parents, Florentino R. Maynes, Sr. and Shirley M. Maynes (Spouses Maynes) when the case reached the Supreme Court.

    Was Sheila validly dismissed from employment?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

    The Court began by recognizing that the validity of Sheila’s dismissal from employment entailed a determination of whether Marivin’s evidence submitted before the National Labor Relations Commission should be considered.

    The Court highlighted the well-settled rule that the National Labor Relations Commission is not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. The Court stated that labor officials are mandated by the Labor Code of the Philippines to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. The Court added that even if the evidence was not submitted to the Office of the Labor Arbiter, the fact that it was duly introduced on appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission is enough basis for the latter to be more judicious in admitting the same, instead of falling back on the mere technicality that said evidence can no longer be considered on appeal. Certainly, the Court said, the first course of action would be more consistent with equity and the basic notions of fairness.

    Here, the Court held that Marivin could present evidence during the proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission. It clarified that Sheila was likewise allowed to present controverting evidence thereto. However, the Court found that Sheila did not do so.

    The Court stressed that the pieces of documentary evidence submitted by Marivin before the National Labor Relations Commission are material to establish her contention that Sheila committed infractions which led to the loss of trust and confidence reposed upon her. The Court specifically considered the signatures or handwritten notations of Sheila in certain documents as relevant since these rebutted Sheila’s denial. In fine, the Court stated that justice and equity calls for the admission and appreciation of such evidence.

    The Supreme Court then agreed with the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals that Marivin did not change her theory on appeal. The Supreme Court found that in her Position Paper, Marivin already put forth the argument of breach of trust being a ground for Sheila’s dismissal from employment and was able to attach affidavits and copies of the inventory in order to substantiate her claim of loss of trust and confidence. Although the Court noticed that Marivin was unable to adequately discuss the reasons for the loss of trust and confidence, the fact remained that she argued her position before the Office of the Executive Labor Arbiter and elaborated the same on appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission by appending additional relevant documents.

    With regard to employment termination, the Supreme Court mentioned the settled rule that two requisites must concur to constitute a valid dismissal from employment:

    • the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Philippines; and
    • the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.

    On valid causes for dismissal, the Court centered on Article 297 (c) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which refers to “fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in [him/her] by [his/her] employer” or simply termed as “loss of trust and confidence.”

    According to the Court, the requisites for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence are:

    • the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and
    • there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.

    In addition to these requisites, such loss of trust relates to the employee’s performance of duties.

    In the present case, the Court found that the position of Sheila was clearly imbued with trust and confidence in that she was tasked to:

    • perform overall supervision and control of the outlet including receipt of different items from the main office of the business;
    • safekeep and remit daily sales of the business;
    • prepare inventory;
    • record items released on credit and issue receipts for payments made;
    • give items on account or credit to recognized local dealers; and
    • exercise discretion on the quantity and manner of payment of items released on credit to local dealers or retailers.

    On the other hand, the Court found that Marivin submitted certain documents:

    • a “Stocks Lost List” which bore Sheila’s signature and indicated that certain stocks were lost while Sheila was the sales clerk managing the outlet;
    • a list signed by Shiela relating to lost payments or products (totalling P88,423.00) which she could not locate or explain; and
    • inventory/ledgers and order slips which contained fictitious or non-existent customers.

    The Court noted that Sheila neither offered any justification for the uncovered anomalies nor denied the authenticity of her signature in a promissory note wherein she acknowledged taking cash for certain sales and losing stocks.

    The Court reiterated that Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Philippines lists loss of trust and confidence in an employee, who is entrusted with fiducial matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer’s property, as a just cause for an employee’s dismissal. The right to terminate employment based on just and authorized causes stems from a similarly protected constitutional guarantee to employers of reasonable return on investments.

    Based on the circumstances, the Court concluded that Marivin dismissed Sheila with just cause.

    However, the Court discovered that Sheila was denied procedural due process.

    The Court explained that procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two (2) written notices before the termination of employment can be effected:

    • the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and
    • the second informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.

    In the present case, the Court found no evidence that Sheila was given any notice to explain or the opportunity to be heard before her dismissal. On the other hand, the Court found that Sheila only learned about her dismissal from service when notices stating her termination from work were posted in the premises of the outlet.

    The Court accordingly affirmed the award of nominal damages in Sheila’s favor.

    The Court clarified that where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. The indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of “dismiss now, pay later.” The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special consideration the gravity of the due process violation of the employer. Under the Civil Code, nominal damages is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

    Further reading:

    • Spouses Maynes v. Oreiro, G.R. No. 206109, November 25, 2020.

  • Genuine Loss of Trust and Confidence

    Noel alleged that on January 2, 2013, he was hired as Assistant Vice President for Mining Services by Delta Earthmoving to take charge of the company’s human resources department and to perform other administrative functions. In June 2013, the company assigned him to work as Officer-in-Charge of the Oceana Gold Philippines, Inc. — Didipio Gold Project to assist in the operations while his immediate supervisor, Ian, was on roster break.

    Noel claimed that on December 29, 2013, Ian instructed him to pack his things and to not report back to work since his employment was already terminated. On January 6, 2014, Noel confirmed from Ed, who was Delta Earthmoving’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, the termination of his employment.

    Noel stated that he was also asked to tender his resignation, but he refused. Instead, he filed the present complaint.

    Delta Earthmoving maintained that Noel was validly dismissed due to poor performance, resulting in loss of trust and confidence.

    To prove the just cause for the dismissal, Delta Earthmoving pointed to the Performance Evaluation and various memoranda indicating gross neglect of duty and inefficiency on the part of Noel, as follows:

    • neglecting instructions from his superiors, such as truck hauling and volume studies;
    • failing to improve KM 20 to serve as employees’ accommodation;
    • failing to submit 2013 mine operations budget;
    • delaying the submission of cost reports and billings, which delayed collection; and
    • failing to perform his duties despite constant reminders.

    Delta Earthmoving stated that Noel refused to receive the performance evaluation as he insisted on having performed his job well.

    Aside from the presence of just cause, Delta Earthmoving also claimed to have complied with the requirements of procedural due process in terminating Noel’s employment.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter found that Noel was illegally dismissed, and it held Delta Earthmoving liable for payment of the awards.

    Delta Earthmoving filed an appeal with an urgent motion to reduce appeal bond before the National Labor Relations Commission.

    The Commission issued a Resolution, granting the prayer for reduction of appeal bond after considering Delta Earthmoving’s posting of a bond equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award to be reasonable and finding the grounds raised in the appeal to be meritorious.

    On the main issue of illegal dismissal, the Commission held in the same Resolution that Noel was validly dismissed by reason of loss of trust and confidence. According to the Commission, Delta Earthmoving received reports of Noel’s failure to perform various tasks, and this led to the issuance of six memoranda relative to his work assignments. Delta Earthmoving conducted a performance evaluation, which Noel failed. While Noel denied these allegations, he did not present any proof that he turned in the required reports, or that he completed the assigned tasks.

    On the procedural aspect of Noel’s dismissal from employment, the Commission ruled that Noel was afforded due process as his adamant refusal to submit a written explanation should not be taken against Delta Earthmoving.

    Noel elevated the matter on certiorari to the Court of Appeals.

    In its Decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s judgment of Noel’s valid dismissal. Noel sought reconsideration but this too was denied.

    Noel filed his petition before the Supreme Court

    He claimed that Delta Earthmoving’s appeal should not have been given due course as there was no meritorious ground to justify the reduction of the appeal bond.

    As for his dismissal, Noel insisted that the alleged loss of trust and confidence was not proven since he was not even apprised of his superiors’ alleged dissatisfaction with his performance. Noel added that he was not given copies of the memoranda and the Performance Management Form and was therefore deprived of the opportunity to submit his explanation.

    Noel also pointed out that Hansen, his immediate superior, informed him of the good job he did on the mining site. In this regard, Noel contended that the Commission and the Court of Appeals failed to recognize that Hansen, who closely worked with him on-site, was in a better position to evaluate his work performance than his other superiors who were stationed in the Delta Earthmoving main office.

    On the procedural aspect, Noel alleged that his termination was aggravated by Delta Earthmoving’s failure to give the required notices. Noel mentioned that Hansen asked him to leave the company premises after the Christmas break and told him to stop reporting for work upon instruction of Delta Earthmoving’s management. Noel stated that Ed also tried to convince him to execute a letter of resignation in exchange for payment of one month’s salary.

    Was the Commission correct in giving due course to the appeal?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

    The Court cited Article 229 of the Labor Code of the Philippines which governs appeals in labor cases. The law provides that decisions, awards, or orders of the Office of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

    The Court added that Section 4 (b), Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, highlights the indispensable nature of the posting of a bond in appeals from the Office of the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission. Such rule states that a mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.

    The Court explained that the posting by the employer of a cash or surety bond is mandatory to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer’s appeal. The requirement was designed to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees’ just and lawful claims.

    In the present case, the Court found that Delta Earthmoving’s appeal was accompanied by a motion to reduce appeal bond, and by an amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the judgment award, which was posted as appeal bond.

    The Court stressed that in order to stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal, a motion to reduce bond must comply with two conditions:

    • the motion to reduce bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and
    • a reasonable amount of bond in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant.

    Regarding “meritorious ground” the Court expounded that the same takes into account the respective rights of the parties and the attending circumstances and could pertain to either the appellant’s lack of financial capability to pay the full amount of the bond, the merits of the main appeal, the absence of an employer-employee relationship, prescription of claims, and other similarly valid issues that are raised in the appeal.

    In the present case, the Court found that the Commission made a preliminary determination that Delta Earthmoving had a valid claim as there was no illegal dismissal to justify the award.

    For the Supreme Court, the Commission did not err in giving due course to the appeal. Thus, the Supreme Court did not fault the Court of Appeals in sustaining the Commission’s approval of the motion to reduce the appeal bond, considering that the determination of the presence of a “meritorious ground” is a matter fully within the Commission’s discretion.

    Was the dismissal of Noel from employment valid?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Noel was illegally dismissed from employment.

    The Court stated that Article 297 (c) of the Labor Code of the Philippines allows an employer to terminate an employment for willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.

    The Court explained that an employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests, particularly one who has committed willful breach of trust under Article 297 (c). This 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. However, to justify a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the concurrence of two (2) conditions must be satisfied:

    • the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and
    • there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.

    The Court found that the first requisite was present in that the parties admitted that Noel was a managerial employee, thus held a position of trust and confidence. The Court noted that a great deal of Delta Earthmoving’s business relied on the competence of Noel.

    As regards the second requisite, the Court discussed that in terminating managerial employees based on loss of trust and confidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. The mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer is enough. This degree of proof differs from that of a rank-and-file employee which requires proof of involvement in the alleged events, and that mere uncorroborated assertions by the employer will be insufficient. Despite the less stringent degree of proof involving managerial employees, jurisprudence is firm that loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse due to its subjective nature. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought intended to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.

    In the present case, the Court doubted the evaluation conducted on Noel’s performance based on the following findings:

    • The date of evaluation and period covered were not indicated;
    • Gaddi, the person who conducted the evaluation, was not competent to conduct the same since he was not Noel’s immediate supervisor;
    • No copy of the evaluation was given to Noel. If Noel really refused to receive the same, Delta Earthmoving should have sent a copy of the same to Noel by registered mail.

    For the Court, the Performance Evaluation was a mere afterthought to justify Noel’s termination from employment due to alleged poor performance.

    On the other hand, the Court found that Ian’s email to Noel was telling in that Noel was commended for all the good work he had done at Didipio Gold Project.

    At the same time, the Court discredited Delta Earthmoving’s memoranda which directed Noel to explain in writing certain acts of negligence because there was no showing that the same were served on Noel. The Court viewed the memoranda as concoctions on the part of the employer to strengthen its position against Noel. The Court emphasized that Delta Earthmoving should have instead submitted records revealing Noel’s dismal work performance. There being no showing of poor performance, gross negligence and inefficiency on Noel’s part, no basis supported the alleged loss of trust and confidence upon him.

    The Court pointed out that loss of trust and confidence, as a ground for dismissal, may not be invoked arbitrarily. Managerial employees could not simply be dismissed on account of their position.

    Moreover, the Court observed that Delta Earthmoving failed to comply with the requirements of procedural due process in the termination of Noel’s employment since the fact of his termination was only relayed to him by his immediate supervisor in the mining site, upon instructions received from Delta Earthmoving’s main office. Noel’s email correspondence with his supervisor even shows that he had to go to Delta Earthmoving’s office in Quezon City to verify for himself if his employment was indeed terminated.

    Noel’s dismissal was thus declared illegal as he was denied his right to substantive and procedural due process.

    The Court reminded employers that the misdeed attributed to the employee must be a genuine and serious breach of the established expectations required by the exigencies of the position regardless of its designation, and not a mere distaste, apathy, or petty misunderstanding. What is at stake are the employee’s reputation, good name, and source of livelihood, at the very least. Employment and tenure cannot be bargained away for the convenience of attaching blame and holding one accountable when no such accountability exists.

    Further reading:

    • Manrique v. Delta Earthmoving, Inc., G.R. No. 229429, November 9, 2020.

    Subscribe to YouTube and Spotify