This case has been cited 21 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Also, the Court agrees with respondent's contention that if petitioner's long years of service would be regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of dismissal, it will actually become a prize for disloyalty, perverting the meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of all undesirables.[29] In addition, where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the employees, the law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a first offender and a habitual delinquent.[30] In the present case, all the more should petitioner's years of service be taken against him in light of the finding of the lower tribunals that his violation of an established company rule was shown to be willful and such willfulness was characterized by a wrongful attitude. Moreover, petitioner has never shown any feelings of remorse for what he has done, considering that the lower tribunals found no justification on his part in inflicting injury upon a co-employee. To make matters worse, petitioner even exhibited a seemingly arrogant attitude in insisting to remain silent and rejecting requests for him to explain his side despite having been given numerous opportunities to do so. | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner, in the present case, was L&T's CHR Director for Manufacturing. As such, she was directly responsible for managing her own departmental staff. It is therefore without question that the CHR Director for Manufacturing is a managerial position saddled with great responsibility. Because of this, petitioner must enjoy the full trust and confidence of her superiors. Not only that, she ought to know that she is "bound by more exacting work ethics"[37] and should live up to this high standard of responsibility. However, petitioner delivered dismal performance and displayed poor work attitude which constitute sufficient reasons for an employer to terminate an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Respondents also impute upon petitioner gross negligence and incompetence which are likewise justifiable grounds for dismissal.[38] The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid cause lies on the employer.[39] Here, respondents were able to overcome this burden as the evidence presented clearly support the validity of petitioner's dismissal. | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that loss of trust and confidence constitutes a just and valid cause for an employee's termination. In Etcuban, Jr. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., [8] this Court held: Law and jurisprudence have long recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence. More so, in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of responsibility, loss of trust justifies termination. Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised from the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. This situation holds where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. But, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be "work-related" such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer. [9] | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Law and jurisprudence have long recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence."[23] As provided for in Article 282, an employer may terminate an employee's employment for fraud or willful breach of trust reposed in him. "But, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be `work-related' such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer."[24] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The assailed findings may not be backed by proof beyond reasonable doubt but we, nevertheless, lend great weight and credence to them since they have been adopted by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and are supported by substantial evidence. As we have consistently held, the degree of proof required in labor cases is not as stringent as in other types of cases.[28] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The January 18, 1991 Resolution of the PAL Board of Directors, the relevant portions of which are discussed in the narration of the facts of this case as culled from the assailed September 29, 1995 NLRC Decision, clearly laid out the reasons why it considered private respondent along with her other co-employees in PAL resigned from the service effective immediately for loss of confidence and for acts inimical to the interest of the company. In private respondent's case, the Resolution underscored her acts of mismanagement and gross incompetence which made her fail to detect the irregularities in the Goldair account that resulted in huge financial losses for petitioner. Admittedly, the said findings are not backed by proof beyond reasonable doubt but are, nevertheless, given credence since they have been adopted by both the labor arbiter and the NLRC and are supported by substantial evidence. As we have consistently held, the degree of proof required in labor cases is not as stringent as in other types of cases.[28] | |||||
|
2008-12-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The degree of proof required in labor cases is not as stringent as in other types of cases.[21] As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the services of managerial employees who perform functions which by their nature require the employers' full trust and confidence,[22] thus, existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust of the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.[23] In fact, it has been held that when the employer has ample reason to distrust an employee, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to dismiss him.[24] | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| It is clear that Article 282(c) of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence. The right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence is well established in jurisprudence.[9] | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Long recognized is the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence, particularly in cases of personnel occupying positions of responsibility. The burden of proof required in labor cases, however, must be amply discharged. Ordinarily, with respect to managerial employees, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would be enough, such as when there is a reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[27] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Let it be stressed that insofar as the application of the doctrine of trust and confidence is concerned, jurisprudence has distinguished the treatment of managerial employees or employees occupying positions of trust and confidence from that of rank-and-file personnel. With respect to the latter, loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, but as regards managerial employees, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his or her dismissal.[46] For this purpose, there is no need to present proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss of trust or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[47] Respondent's conduct, in this case, is sufficient basis for the company to lose its trust and confidence in her. Under the circumstances, the company cannot be expected to retain its trust and confidence in and continue to employ a manager whose attitude is perceived to be inimical to its interests. Unlike other just causes for dismissal, trust in an employee, once lost, is difficult, if not impossible to regain.[48] | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient;[34] otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure of the employee will be jeopardized.[35] | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Section 7, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that when the employee is dismissed for any of the just causes under Article 282[13] of the Labor Code, he shall not be entitled to termination pay without prejudice to applicable collective bargaining agreement or voluntary employer policy or practice.[14] Separation pay shall be allowed only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.[15] Separation pay in such case is granted to stand as a "measure of social justice."[16] If the cause for the termination of employment cannot be considered as one of mere inefficiency or incompetence but an act that constitutes an utter disregard for the interest of the employer or a palpable breach of trust in him, the grant by the Court of separation benefits is hardly justifiable.[17] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Arlyn's argument that "Even granting that there was withdrawal from the [Branch Head's] commissions, [SICI] was not even prejudiced financially [and] its income was not diminished [as the withdrawn amounts were not] diverted from its coffers"[40] fails. Etcuban, Jr. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.[41] instructs that:"x x x Whether or not the respondent was financially prejudiced is immaterial. Also, what matters is not the amount involved, be it paltry or gargantuan; rather the fraudulent scheme in which the petitioner was involved, which constitutes a clear betrayal of trust and confidence." x x x[42] (Underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Law and jurisprudence have long recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence,[9] especially in cases of employees occupying positions of responsibility, on the premise that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence.[10] | |||||
|
2006-11-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, law[43] and jurisprudence have long recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence.[44] More so, in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of responsibility, loss of trust justifies termination.[45] Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. This situation holds where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. But, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be "work-related" such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.[46] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Unlike a rank-and-file worker, where breach of trust as a ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged anomaly and where mere uncorroborated accusation by the employer will not suffice, the sheer existence of a basis for believing that the employer's trust has been breached is enough for the dismissal of a managerial employee.[20] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The law, in protecting the rights of the employee, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.[33] Contrary to petitioners' claim, remand of the case to the NLRC is proper since the company has yet to present its evidence during the formal hearing. It is true that both parties have been provided the opportunity to prove their cases through the pleadings submitted before the NLRC; however, only petitioners were given the chance to present its side in the formal hearing. The factual issues raised in the consolidated cases could still be affected by the additional evidence to be presented by the company. Equity demands that the company must be equally allowed to adduce its evidence, if the NLRC is to come up with a rational and impartial decision. | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In various instances before the Labor Arbiter, private respondent pointed out that he was merely forced or compelled to obey the demands of Disuanco. However, no proof as to the extent and degree of compulsion, force or threat was adduced other then private respondent's bare assertion that he was a weakling and that Disuanco had a strong personality with whom he was afraid to cross swords. In short, these assertions were just private respondent's lame justification for his irregular acts.[12] (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing, we find that loss of trust and confidence, as a valid ground for termination, has been clearly established. Petitioner's alleged good faith or the fact that he did not profit from the illegal transactions, would not justify his infraction. In Etcuban, Jr. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.,[13] we upheld the employee's dismissal despite lack of proof of actual participation in anomalous activities because his actuations had sown in his employer "the seed of mistrust and loss of confidence," thus: While, indeed, it was not proved that he was the one who made the irregular entries on the tickets, the fact that he did not lift a finger at all to determine who it was is a sad reflection of his job. In fact, even if the petitioner had no actual and direct participation in the alleged anomalies, his failure to detect any anomaly in the passage tickets amounts to gross negligence and incompetence, which are, likewise, justifiable grounds for his dismissal. Be that as it may, to our mind, it is no longer necessary to prove the petitioner's direct participation in the irregularity, for what is material is that his actuations were more than sufficient to sow in his employer the seed of mistrust and loss of confidence.[14] The aforesaid ruling applies with greater force against petitioner because of his unequivocal declaration that he participated in the kiting operations by typing his password to complete the "over-ride." His participation was indispensable in the perpetration of the prohibited transactions. | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Law[31] and jurisprudence have long recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence.[32] More so, in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of responsibility, loss of trust justifies termination.[33] Loss of confidence as a just cause for dismissal is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. This situation applies where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. But, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be "work-related," such that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[34] | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| There is jurisprudential support, as noted by the Court of Appeals in citing University of the East v. NLRC[18] that lack of material or pecuniary damages would not in any way mitigate a person's liability nor obliterate the loss of trust and confidence. In the case of Etcuban v. Sulpicio Lines,[19] this Court definitively ruled that:. . . Whether or not the respondent bank was financially prejudiced is immaterial. Also, what matters is not the amount involved, be it paltry or gargantuan; rather the fraudulent scheme in which the petitioner was involved, which constitutes a clear betrayal of trust and confidence. . . . | |||||
|
2005-10-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence. However, we emphasize that such ground is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility or trust and confidence.[12] In order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be "work-related" such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.[13] More importantly, the loss of trust and confidence must be based on the willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. A breach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[14] | |||||