Esguerra vs. Valle Verde
June 13, 2012
FACTS:
Valle Verde hired Esguerra as Head Food Checker and
was promoted to Cost Control Supervisor. The Mana
gement found out that proceeds had been remitted t
o the accounting department for an event were lacki
ng. There were also unauthorized charges of food on
one of the participants. To resolve the issue, Valle Ver
de conducted an investigation; the employees who w
ere assigned in that event were summoned and mad
e to explain, in writing, what had transpired. A memo
randum was sent to Esguerra requiring her to show c
ause as to why no disciplinary action should be taken
against her for the non-
remittance of the Ballroom’s sales. Esguerra was plac
ed under preventive suspension with pay, pending in
vestigation. Unsatisfied with the explanation, Esguerr
a was terminated.
Petitioner said that she couldn’t be dismissed on the
ground of loss of trust and confidence for she was onl
y a regular employee and did not occupy a supervisor
y position vested with trust and confidence. Esguerra
also questions the manner of dismissal since the notic
e was insufficient since it failed to contain any intenti
on to terminate her.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not intention to terminate should be i
ncluded in the notice of informing of charge
s against an employee.
• Whether or not Cost Control Supervisor can be dis
missed on the ground of loss of trust and co
nfidence.
HELD:
1.) No. The law does not require that an intention to t
erminate one’s employment should be included in th
e first notice. It is enough that employees are properl
y apprised of the charges brought against them so th
ey can properly prepare their defenses; it is only duri
ng the second notice that the intention to terminate
one’s employment should be explicitly stated.
The existence of an actual, formal “trial-
type” hearing, although preferred, is not absolutely n
ecessary to satisfy the employee’s right to be heard.
Esguerra was able to present her defenses; and only
upon proper consideration of it did Valle Verde send t
he second memorandum terminating her employme
nt. Since Valle Verde complied with the two-
notice requirement, no procedural defect exists in Es
guerra’s termination.
2.) Esguerra held the position of Cost Control Supervi
sor and had the duty to remit to the accounting depa
rtment the cash sales proceeds from every transactio
n she was assigned to. This is not a routine task that a
regular employee may perform; it is related to the ha
ndling of business expenditures or finances. For this r
eason, Esguerra occupies a position of trust and confi
dence – a position enumerated in the second class of
positions of trust
(first is for the managerial employees). Any breach of
the trust imposed upon her can be a valid cause for di
smissal.
Under the Labor Code, the requirements for the lawful
dismissal of an employee are two-fold[:] the
substantive and the procedural aspects. Not only must
the dismissal be for a just or authorized cause, the
rudimentary requirements of due process—notice
and hearing—must, likewise, be observed x x x.
Without the concurrence of the two, the termination
would x x x be illegal[;] employment is a property right
of which one cannot be deprived of without due
process.
In sum, the existence of an actual, formal “trial-type”
hearing, although preferred, is not absolutely
necessary to satisfy the employee’s right to be heard.
Esguerra was able to present her defenses; and only
upon proper consideration of it did Valle Verde send
the second memorandum terminating her
employment. Since Valle Verde complied with the
two-notice requirement, no procedural defect exists
in Esguerra’s termination.
In Jardine Davies, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 311 SCRA 289 (1999), we held that loss
of confidence as a just cause for termination of
employment can be invoked when an employee holds
a position of responsibility, trust and confidence. In
order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act
complained of must be related to the performance of
the duties of the dismissed employee and must show
that he or she is unfit to continue working for the
employer for violation of the trust reposed in him or
her.