391

Farrol v CA
Facts: Wenifredo Farrol was employed as station cashier at
respondent RCPIs Cotabato City station. On On October 1, 1993,
petitioner verified as correct RCPIs Field Auditors report that there
was a shortage of P50,985.37 in their branchs Peragram, Petty and
General Cash Funds. On October 16, 1993, RCPI required petitioner
to explain why he should not be dismissed from employment. Two
days thereafter, petitioner wrote a letter to the Field Auditor stating
that the missing funds were used for the payment of the retirement
benefits earlier referred to by the branch manager and that he had
already paid P25,000.00 to RCPI. After making two more payments
of the cash shortage to RCPI, petitioner was informed by the district
manager that he is being placed under preventive
suspension. Thereafter, he again paid two more sums on different
dates to RCPI leaving a balance of P6,995.37 of the shortage.
Respondent RCPI claims that it sent a letter to petitioner on
November 22, 1993 informing him of the termination of his services
as of November 20, 1993. Unaware of the termination letter,
petitioner requested that he be reinstated considering that the period
of his preventive suspension had expired. Sometime in September
1995, petitioner manifested to RCPI his willingness to settle his case
provided he is given his retirement benefits. However, RCPI
informed petitioner that his employment had already been terminated
earlier as contained in the letter dated November 22, 1993. It was
submitted for voluntary arbitration. After hearing, the Voluntary
Arbitrator ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed from
employment and ordered RCPI to pay him backwages, separation
pay, 13th month pay and sick leave benefits. Aggrieved, RCPI filed a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which
reversed the ruling of the arbitrator and dismissed the complaint for
illegal dismissal.
Issue: WON the dismissal of Farrol was valid
Ruling: NO. As set forth in the foregoing procedures, the
employer must comply with the twin requirements of two notices and
hearing. The first notice is that which apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and
after affording the employee an opportunity to be heard, a
subsequent notice informing the latter of the employers decision to
dismiss him from work. As regards the first notice, RCPI simply
required petitioner to "explain in writing why he failed to account" for
the shortage and demanded that he restitute the same. On the
assumption that the foregoing statement satisfies the first notice, the
second notice sent by RCPI to petitioner does not "clearly" cite the
reasons for the dismissal. A perusal of RCPIs dismissal notice
reveals that it merely stated a conclusion to the effect that the
withholding was deliberately done to hide alleged malversation or
misappropriation without, however, stating the facts and
circumstances in support thereof. It further mentioned that the
position of cashier requires utmost trust and confidence but failed to
allege the breach of trust on the part of petitioner and how the
alleged breach was committed. On the assumption that there was
indeed a breach, there is no evidence that petitioner was a
managerial employee of respondent RCPI. It should be noted that
the term "trust and confidence" is restricted to managerial
employees. It may not even be presumed that when there is a
shortage, there is also a corresponding breach of trust. Cash
shortages in a cashiers work may happen, and when there is no
proof that the same was deliberately done for a fraudulent or
wrongful purpose, it cannot constitute breach of trust so as to render
the dismissal from work invalid.
392
VH v NLRC
Facts: Since November 5, 1985 private respondent Gamido
was employed in petitioners business of manufacturing liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders. His dismissal stemmed from an
incident on February 10, 1995 wherein petitioners company
President, Alejandro Dy Juanco, allegedly caught private respondent
sleeping on the job. On that same day, private respondent was
asked through a written notice from the petitioners Personnel
Department to explain within twenty-four (24) hours why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him for his violation of
Company Rule 15-b which provides for a penalty of separation for
sleeping during working hours. Without delay, private respondent
replied in a letter. Notwithstanding his foregoing reply, he was
terminated. He then filed on July 4, 1995 a complaint for illegal
dismissal, praying for reinstatement to his position as quality control
inspector. On June 20, 1996, Labor Arbiter Ricardo C. Nora
rendered his decision upholding petitioners position and declared
that private respondents dismissal is anchored on a valid and just
cause and the latters contention of denial of due process as devoid
of merit. Private respondent then appealed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter to the public respondent NLRC where it was assigned to the
First Division. The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter
and ordered herein petitioner to reinstate private respondent with full
backwages less one-month pay.
Issue: WON the dismissal of Gamido was valid
Ruling: NO. A thorough review of the record discloses that,
contrary to the findings of the Labor Arbiter, petitioners claim that
private respondent slept on the job on February 10, 1995 was not
substantiated by any convincing evidence other than the bare
allegation of petitioner. The report of Ronaldo M. Alvarez, Acting
Quality Control Department Head of petitioner corporation, on the
circumstances which ultimately served as basis for the termination of
private respondents employment, did not confirm the alleged
violation by private respondent of the pertinent Company Rule 15-b.
The report merely stated private respondents denial and response to
petitioners allegation which he reiterated in his written reply.
While an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the
promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related
activities of the employees, those directives, however, must always
be fair and reasonable, and the corresponding penalties, when
prescribed, must be commensurate to the offense involved and to
the degree of the infraction. In the case at bar, the dismissal meted
out on private respondent for allegedly sleeping on the job, under the
attendant circumstances, appears to be too harsh a
penalty, considering that he was being held liable for first time, after
nine (9) long years of unblemished service, for an alleged offense
which caused no prejudice to the employer, aside from absence of
substantiation of the alleged offense. The authorities cited by
petitioner are also irrelevant for the reason that there is no evidence
on the depravity of conduct, willfulness of the disobedience, or
conclusiveness of guilt on the part of private respondent. Neither was
it shown that private respondents alleged negligence or neglect of
duty, if any, was gross and habitual. Thus, reinstatement is just and
proper.

393
Reyno v Manila Electric
Facts: On August 1, 1969, Francisco P. Reyno, petitioner, was
employed by the Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO), respondent, where he eventually occupied the position
of Assistant Squad Leader of Squad 12 at the Inspection
Department. Petitioner and his team of inspectors were in charge of
monitoring and inspecting electric meters installed at the premises of
respondents customers; ensuring the accuracy of the electric
consumption recorded in these meters; and reporting and
apprehending violators who use insidious schemes or devices to
reduce their electric consumption deliberately. Later, respondent
implemented an incentive scheme aimed at encouraging its
inspectors to perform their duties zealously. Under this incentive
scheme, the inspector concerned shall be paid an additional 30-
minute overtime pay for every submitted report of major violation/s
committed by customers against respondent.Sometime in July 1987,
respondent received several complaints about an illegal connection
at the Daig Kaku Restaurant. Acting thereon, SPC conducted an
investigation wherein members of Squad 12 were summoned to
shed light on the matter. Their declarations pointed to petitioners
irregular performance of his duties. This prompted SPC, on
September 14 and 21, 1987, to conduct clarificatory hearing. But the
hearing set on September 14, 1987 was cancelled for failure of
petitioners counsel to appear despite notice. When the case was
called for hearing as scheduled, his counsel again failed to
appear. He then opted to proceed with the clarificatory hearing
without the assistance of his counsel and was dismissed. Eventually,
petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal
and payment of overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest
days, damages and attorneys fees against respondent.
Issue: WON the dismissal of Reyno was Valid
Ruling: YES. There was investigation conducted and
complainant participated in the process. Based on the foregoing
facts, it is abundantly clear that complainant was accorded the fullest
opportunity to be heard. Private respondent was not a mere rank-
and-file employee; he was an Assistant Leader of Squad 12 of
petitioners Inspection Division. The position of an inspector is
imbued with a high degree of honesty. Considering that private
respondent was occupying the position of assistant squad leader, the
degree of honesty required of private respondent is likewise of a
degree higher than that demanded of an ordinary inspector.
The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the
employer, as in this case, 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 by
his position. An employees 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.
394
ALU V NLRC
Facts: On September 12, 1993, at around 7 oclock in the
morning, petitioner Felizardo was apprehended by a security guard
manning respondent Republic Flour Mills companys gate while
bringing out a pair of boots, one (1) piece of aluminum container, and
fifteen (15) pieces of hamburger patties. On September 13, 1993, he
was placed under preventive suspension pending investigation of the
incident by the company. On September 27, 1993, petitioner was
dismissed for dishonesty for theft of company property, effective
September 13, 1993.The Labor Arbiter found that with the exception
of the pair of boots, the articles which petitioner took from the
company were mere scraps which were of no value to respondent
company. He ruled that dismissal was too harsh a penalty to be
imposed on a first-time offender and that his unemployment for about
eleven (11) months was sufficient penalty for what he had done.
Accordingly, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioners reinstatement
without backwages. On appeal, the NLRC reversed.
Issue: WON the dismissal of Felizardo was valid
Ruling: NO. In this case, we agree with the Labor Arbiter that
dismissal would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offense
committed by petitioner considering the value of the articles he
pilfered and the fact that he had no previous derogatory record
during his two (2) years of employment in the company. The Labor
Arbiter is certainly mistaken in regarding the articles taken to be
mere scraps and hence without value to the company. They were of
some value but not enough to warrant dismissal. Moreover, it should
also be taken into account that petitioner is not a managerial or
confidential employee in whom greater trust is placed by
management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is
correspondingly expected. It is easy to see why an unfaithful
employee who is holding a position of trust and confidence in a
company poses a greater danger to its security than a mere clerk or
machine operator like petitioner. There is another reason why
violations by non-confidential employees of company rules and
regulations such as that involved in this case are considered
minor. Such employees are generally mere wage earners whose
dismissal from employment can have severe financial consequences
on their families especially at a time like the present when
unemployment is quite high. Consequently, whatever missteps may
have been committed by them ought not to be visited with a
consequence so severe as dismissal.




395
PLDT V NLRC
Facts: Private respondent, Enrique Gabriel, was employed by
petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), as
a foreman. On September 5, 1989, Enrique Gabriel ordered Medel
Mercado, an installer, to set-up two telephone units at Unit R,
Facilities Center Building, located at Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong,
Metro Manila. On October 16, 1989, private respondent, again
ordered Juancho Jocson, another installer, to set-up additional units
for the same subscriber. Later, both installation activities were
investigated because (a) the Facilities Center Building had no
entrance cable facilities or conduit wires for telephone connection,
(b) Mandaluyong was not within respondents area of jurisdiction,
and (c) installers Mercado and Jocson were not under his direct
supervision. In the administrative investigation conducted by PLDT,
where a confrontation between private respondent and installers
Mercado and Jocson took place, private respondent tried to explain
his side to clear certain issues taken against him, adding that his
intention in ordering the installation of the telephone units was to
provide customer satisfaction. However, on February 1, 1990, the
petitioner still required the private respondent to submit a written
report of the incident. He submitted his explanation and, although
admitting the responsibility of his actions, reiterated his
rationalization that his sole intention was to serve the customer,
thereby earning goodwill for the company. On September 3, 1990,
private respondent was dismissed from employment on the ground
that he committed grave misconduct, breach of trust, and violations
of company rules and regulations when he ordered the unwarranted
installation activities.
Issue: WON the dismissal of Gabriel was valid.
Ruling: NO. In the present case, there is no dispute that the
private respondent ordered the installation of the telephone units in
favor of Marlon Aquino, a telephone subscriber. As found by the
Labor Arbiter, private respondents orders were irregular. The orders
of telephone connection were pursued even if there were no
entrance cable facilities for telephone connection. Moreover,
Mandaluyong was not within the area of private respondents
jurisdiction. The installers, Mercado and Jocson, were not under his
direct supervision. Yet based on his instruction, he secured OK
numbers for the telephones and performed call back at the panel
box while misrepresenting himself to the dispatch clerk as the
subscriber. Despite these circumstances, the NLRC reversed the
Labor Arbiters order of dismissal imposed against private
respondent Enrique Gabriel. According to the NLRC, it found no
written rule of PLDT which provides that such unwarranted
installation of telephone lines is subject to the penalty of
dismissal. Nor was there any proof that the private respondent
profited from the said setting up of telephone lines. Neither was
there a showing that PLDT suffered losses from the telephone
service in favor of Mr. Marlon Aquino. Finally, as claimed by the
private respondent in his memorandum, which was not rebutted on
this point by the petitioner, the subject telephones were installed only
after the documents of approval were issued by PLDT. Given these
circumstances, a substantial doubt as to the validity of the
termination appears, and the employees claim of illegal dismissal
accordingly gains credence because such doubt must be resolved in
his favor. This Court has held time and again, in a number of
decisions, that notwithstanding the existence of a valid cause for
dismissal, such as breach of trust by an employee, nevertheless,
dismissal should not be imposed, as it is too severe a penalty if the
latter has been employed for a considerable length of time in the
service of his employer. In the case at bar, we have to concede that
in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent, Gabriel, the
public respondent, NLRC, is not entirely without good and justifiable
reason.

396
Cebu Filveneer v NLRC
Facts: On November 16, 1991, the private respondent Jessielyn
Villaflor was hired as chief accountant of petitioner Cebu Filveneer
Corporation. Ms. Rhodora M. Guillermo served as her accounting
clerk. The top executives of petitioner corporation were Italians: Mr.
Carlo Cordaro, President; Mr. John Chapman Kun, General
Manager; and, Mr. Renato Marinoni, Production Manager. On
January 21, 1992, Mr. Kun informed Mr. Cordaro of his desire to
resign as general manager effective March 1, 1992. He requested
for the liquidation of his investment in the company in the sum
of P125,000.00. On February 7, 1992, Mr. Kun secured one blank
check and blank check voucher from Ms. Guillermo. Ms. Guillermo
failed to immediately inform the private respondent of the blank
check and voucher taken by Mr. Kun. Private respondent, however,
noticed the missing check voucher on February 10, 1992. She
asked Ms. Guillermo about the check voucher and was told that it
was with Mr. Kun. Mr. Kun was able to prepare the check in the
amount of P125,000.00, had it signed by Mr. Marinoni and encashed
on February 12, 1992. Private respondent learned of Mr. Kun's act
and forthwith informed Mr. Cordaro who was then in Italy. Mr.
Cordaro suspended Mr. Kun and designated Mr. Marinoni and the
private complainant as responsible persons for the company
funds. On her part, the private complainant wrote to the PNB MEPZ
Branch demanding the return of the encashed check. On February
15, 1992, Mr. Marinoni confronted the private respondent and
charged her with complicity in Mr. Kun's irregular disbursement of
company funds. On February 17, 1992, the private respondent
reported for work late and was prevented entry by the security
guards. On April 6, 1992 petitioner dismissed the private respondent
on two grounds.
Issue: WON the dismissal of Villaflor was valid
Ruling: NO. At the very most, petitioners were only able to
prove that private respondent failed to inform immediately her
superiors of the act of Mr. Kun in getting a blank check and blank
voucher from Ms. Guillermo. The omission of the private respondent
can hardly be described as "willful" to justify her dismissal. For one,
the omission did not last for long. For another, the subsequent
actions of the private respondent upon learning of the encashment of
the unauthorized check by Mr. Kun negate any implication that she
willfully or intentionally defaulted in reporting to prejudice
petitioners. Indeed, she reported the matter to petitioner Cordaro
and wrote to the PNB MEPZ Branch to retrieve the encashed
check. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and
purposely. Petitioners merely proved the omission of the private
respondent but there is no evidence whatsoever that it was done
intentionally. Nor are we prepared to agree with petitioners that the
private respondent was grossly or habitually negligent in the
performance of her duties. The records reveal that the private
respondent has not been remiss in the past in the performance of
her duties, hence, she cannot be charged with habitual
negligence. We cannot also characterize private respondent's
negligence as gross in character. Gross negligence implies a want
or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence or the
entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. In the case
at bar, the evidence does not show that the private respondent has
any reason to distrust Mr. Kun. Mr. Kun was petitioner's general
manager and appears to have conducted himself well in the
performance of his duties in the past. There was not the slightest
reason to suspect that Mr. Kun would commit any illegal act. At the
most, the trust misplaced by the private respondent constitutes error
of judgment but not gross negligence.


397
Golden Thread Knitting v NLRC
Facts: The complainants alleged that in the first week of May
1992 they organized a labor union. On 22 May 1992 Cristina
Balingit, wife of the union Chairman, was dismissed from
employment as sewer. In the last week of May union Chairman
Deogracias Balingit himself was suspended from work as knitting
operator. On 1 June 1992 petitioners shortened the number of
working days of the union officers and members from six (6) to three
(3) days a week. On 1 July 1992 the union filed a petition for
certification election. On 6 July 1992 union members Romulo
Albasin, Melchor Cachucha and George Macaspac, who worked as
printers, were barred from entering the company premises. On 5
August 1992 Flora Balbino
was suspended, then on the same day terminated from her job
as sewer. On 14 August 1992 union Vice Chairman Gilbert Rivera,
as artist, was dismissed from employment together with union
Secretary Mary Ann Macaspac. On 10 September 1992 Mila
Santos was suspended. The complainants thus considered the
foregoing acts as retaliatory measures of petitioners on account of
the former having established a union. Petitioners contended that
they resorted to rotation of work, which affected practically all
employees, because of the low demand for their towels and
shirts. Petitioners also avowed that they validly dismissed five (5) of
the complainants, namely, Romulo Albasin, George Macaspac,
Gilbert Rivera, Mary Ann Macaspac and Flora Balbino. According to
petitioners, Romulo Albasin and George Macaspac slashed several
bundles of towels on 3 July 1992, while the positions of Gilbert
Rivera and Mary Ann Macaspac became redundant. Flora Balbino
threatened the Personnel Manager and violated company rules by
removing her time card from the rack, while Melchor Cachucha was
not dismissed but abandoned his employment on 7 July 1992.
Issue: WON the dismissals of private respondents are valid.
Ruling: NO. With regard to George Macaspac and Romulo
Albasin, We find that petitioners were unable to substantiate the
charge of serious misconduct against Macaspac and
Albasin. Macaspac and Albasin were likewise denied procedural due
process. As correctly observed by respondent NLRC, petitioners
failed to afford Macaspac and Albasin the benefit of hearing and
investigation before termination. As regards Gilbert Rivera and Mary
Ann Macaspac, the NLRC found that their dismissal was not
reported by petitioners to the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) as required by law. In the instant case, we question
petitioners' exercise of management prerogative because it was not
shown that Rivera and Macaspac's positions were indeed
unnecessary, much less was petitioners' claim supported by any
evidence. It is not enough for a company to merely declare that it
has become overmanned. It must produce adequate proof that
such is the actual situation in order to justify the dismissal of the
affected employees for redundancy. On the part of Flora Balbino,
What surfaces from our assessment of the evidence of petitioners is
that Balbino hurled invectives at petitioner Bico because she was
provoked by the baseless suspension imposed on her. Balbino might
have taken the time card in her name but the Court considers this act
as a mere emotional outburst and an offshoot of her
suspension. Anyway, no material damage was demonstrated to
have been suffered by petitioners on account thereof. Insofar as
Melchor Cachucha is concerned, Petitioners' allegation that they
informed Cachucha's wife that Cachucha must report to work
immediately is unsubstantiated and self-serving. The alleged
notification through the memorandum of 22 July 1992 has not been
shown to have been received by Cachucha. On the other hand, the
affidavit of Wales stating that on 23 July 1992 he relayed to
Cachucha the directive to return to work which the latter turned down
for lack of interest does not inspire belief. If Wales' narrations were
true, then Cachucha would have simply abided by the directive and
moved for the dismissal of his complaint which was filed
earlier. After all, it was precisely reinstatement that he was seeking.
398
Central Pangasinan Electric v Macaraeg
Facts: Respondent Geronima Macaraeg and Maribeth de
Vera are employees of petitioner at its office in Area V, Bayambang,
Pangasinan. Respondent de Vera was employed as teller whose
primary duty was to accept payments from petitioners consumers in
Bayambang and remit her collections to the cashier, herein co-
respondent Geronima Macaraeg. Respondent Macaraegs duty was
to deposit the daily collections of the office to petitioners account at
the Rural Bank of Central Pangasinan in Bayambang. From January
1998 to January 1999, respondent de Vera accommodated and
encashed the crossed checks of her sister, Evelyn Joy
Estrada. Evelyn issued two hundred eleven (211) crossed checks
amounting to P6,945,128.95 payable to petitioner cooperative
despite the absence of any transaction or any outstanding obligation
with petitioner. In turn, respondent de Vera, with the knowledge and
consent of respondent Macaraeg, paid the full value of these checks
from the cash collections of petitioner. At the end of the day,
respondents credited the checks as part of their collection and
deposited the same together with their cash collection to the account
of petitioner at the Rural Bank of Central Pangasinan. Sometime in
January 1999, petitioner, through its Finance Department, noticed
that several checks payable to petitioner from the collections in the
Area V office were returned due to insufficiency of funds. On January
19, 1999, Josefina Mandapat, Sandra Frias and Marites Radac,
petitioners Finance Manager, Chief Accountant and Legal Assistant,
respectively, confronted respondents with their
discovery. Respondent de Vera admitted that the checks were
issued by her sister and that she encashed them from the money
collected from petitioners customers. On February 4, 1999,
petitioner, through de Guzman, issued a memorandum to
respondents placing them under preventive suspension and
requiring them to explain in writing within forty-eight (48) hours why
they misappropriated cooperative funds. On March 19, 1999,
General Manager issued to respondents separate notices of
termination, effective April 9, 1999, for serious misconduct, and
breach of trust and confidence reposed on them by management.
Issue: WON the dismissals of private respondents were valid.
Ruling: YES. We hold that there exist a valid reason to dismiss
both employees. To be sure, the acts of the respondents were
clearly inimical to the financial interest of the petitioner. During the
investigation, they admitted accommodating Evelyn Joy Estrada by
encashing her checks from its funds. They did so without petitioners
knowledge, much less its permission. These inimical acts lasted for
more than a year, and probably would have continued had it not
been discovered in time. All along, they were aware that these acts
were prohibited by the Coop Checks Policy. Clearly, there was willful
breach of trust on the respondents part, as they took advantage of
their highly sensitive positions to violate their duties. Moreover, the
acts of the respondents caused damage to the petitioner. During
those times the checks were illegally encashed, petitioner was not
able to fully utilize the collections, primarily in servicing its debts. It is
not material that they did not misappropriate any amount of money,
nor incur any shortage relative to the funds in their possession. The
basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is
that the employees concerned hold positions of trust. The betrayal
of this trust is the essence of the offence for which an employee is
penalized. In the case at bar, the respondents held positions of
utmost trust and confidence. As teller and cashier, respectively, they
are expected to possess a high degree of fidelity. They are
entrusted with a considerable amount of cash. Respondent de Vera
accepted payments from petitioners consumers while respondent
Macaraeg received remittances for deposit at petitioners
bank. They did not live up to their duties and obligations.


399
Philips Semiconductor v Fadriquela
Facts: On May 8, 1992, respondent Eloisa Fadriquela executed
a Contract of Employment with the petitioner in which she was hired
as a production operator with a daily salary of P118. She, however,
incurred five absences in the month of April, three absences in the
month of May and four absences in the month of June. Line
supervisor Shirley F. Velayo asked the respondent why she incurred
the said absences, but the latter failed to explain her side. The
respondent was warned that if she offered no valid justification for
her absences, Velayo would have no other recourse but to
recommend the non-renewal of her contract. The respondent still
failed to respond, as a consequence of which her performance rating
declined to 2.8. Velayo recommended to the petitioner that the
respondents employment be terminated due to habitual
absenteeism, in accordance with the Company Rules and
Regulations. Thus, the respondents contract of employment was no
longer renewed.
Issue: WON the dismissal of Fadriquela was Valid
Ruling: NO. She remained under the employ of the petitioner
without any interruption since May 8, 1992 to June 4, 1993 or for one
(1) year and twenty-eight (28) days. The original contract of
employment had been extended or renewed for four times, to the
same position, with the same chores. Such a continuing need for the
services of the respondent is sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of her services to the petitioners business. By
operation of law, then, the respondent had attained the regular status
of her employment with the petitioner, and is thus entitled to security
of tenure. Respondent was dismissed by the petitioner without the
requisite notice and without any formal investigation. As to the
alleged absences, we are convinced that the same do not constitute
sufficient ground for dismissal. Dismissal is just too stern a
penalty. No less than the Supreme Court mandates that where a
penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be
committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so
severe. Besides, the fact that petitioner was repeatedly given a
contract shows that she was an efficient worker and, therefore,
should be retained despite occasional lapses in
attendance. Perfection cannot, after all, be demanded.
400
Salvador v Philippine Mining Service Corporation
Facts: Petitioner Jose Salvador was first employed by
respondent in 1981. He rose from the ranks and assumed the
position of Plant Inspection Foreman in 1991. As early as March 1,
1985, respondent instituted the shift boss scheme whereby the
foreman from the Plant Section and the foreman from the Mining
Section rotate as shift boss throughout their night shift to oversee
and supervise both the mining and plant operations. The shift boss
was entrusted with the care, supervision and protection of the entire
plant. Aside from his employment with respondent, petitioner co-
owned and managed LHO-TAB Enterprises, with his partner Ondo
Alcantara. They were engaged in the manufacture and sale of
hollow blocks. Respondents evidence disclose that on September
29, 1997, at about 9:30 a.m., Koji Sawa, respondents Assistant
Resident Manager for Administration, was on his way back to his
office in the plant. He and his driver, Roberto Gresones, saw
petitioner operating respondents payloader, scooping fine ore from
the stockpile and loading it on his private cargo truck. As the truck
was blocking the access road leading to the stockyards gate,
Sawas car stopped near the stockpile and the driver blew the horn
thrice. Petitioner did not hear him because of the noise emanating
from his operation of the payloader. Sawas driver found a chance to
pass through when the payloader maneuvered to get another scoop
from the fine ore stockpile. As it was contrary to respondents
standard operating procedure for the plant foreman to operate the
payloader, Sawa went to the administration office to check the
delivery receipt covering the loading operation of petitioner that
morning. However, sales-in-charge Eduardo Guangco was in the
wharf, overseeing the loading of respondents product. Hence, it
was only in the afternoon that Sawa was able to verify the delivery
receipt covering petitioners loading transaction. The delivery receipt
showed that it was dolomite spillage that was purchased by buyer
Ondo Alcantara, not the fine ore that he saw petitioner loading on his
truck. The receipt also showed it was not the respondent but
Alcantara, the buyer, who was responsible for loading the spillage he
purchased from the plant. Accordingly, on November 7,
1997, respondent found petitioner guilty of fraud, serious
misconduct, breach of trust and confidence, violation of the
companys rules and regulations and violation of his contractual
obligations with respondent company. Petitioners services were
terminated.
Issue: WON the dismissal of Salvador was valid
Ruling: In the case at bar, our evaluation of the evidence of both
parties indubitably shows that petitioners dismissal for loss of trust
and confidence was duly supported by substantial evidence. We
reiterate that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employees
misconduct or dishonesty is not required to justify loss of
confidence. It is sufficient that there is substantial basis for the loss
of trust. In the case at bar, respondent has proved by substantial
evidence the charge of pilferage against petitioner. Petitioner argues
that assuming there was evidence to support the charges against
him, his dismissal from service is unwarranted, harsh and grossly
disproportionate to his act, considering his long years of service with
the company. To be sure, length of service is taken into
consideration in imposing the penalty to be meted an erring
employee. However, the case at bar involves dishonesty and
pilferage by petitioner which resulted in respondents loss of
confidence in him. In the case at bar, respondent has every right to
dismiss petitioner, a managerial employee, for breach of trust and
loss of confidence as a measure of self-preservation against acts
patently inimical to its interests. Indeed, in cases of this nature, the
fact that petitioner has been employed with the respondent for a long
time, if to be considered at all, should be taken against him, as his
act of pilferage reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty which he should
have strengthened, instead of betrayed.