Lawyerly

GR No. 197011

2015-01-28

ESSENCIA Q. MANARPIIS v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On the issue of loss of confidence, we have held that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss as long as the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position.[31] Nonetheless, the right of an employer to dismiss employees on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, however, must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause. Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for dismissal. Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse by the employer of its prerogative, as it can easily be subject to abuse because of its subjective nature, as in the case at bar, and the loss must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from work.[32]

GR No. 165025

2011-08-31

FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI

BERSAMIN, J.

The principle of estoppel, which is based on equity and public policy,[36] dictates that FDC's active participation in both RTC proceedings and its seeking therein affirmative reliefs now precluded it from denying the RTC's jurisdiction. Its acknowledgment of the RTC's jurisdiction and its subsequent denial of such jurisdiction only after an unfavorable judgment were inappropriate and intolerable. The Court abhors the practice of any litigant of submitting a case for decision in the trial court, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking the judgment for lack of jurisdiction if it is not.[37]

GR No. 174621

2009-01-30

LA UNION CEMENT WORKERS UNION v. NLRC

TINGA, J.

the aforestated doctrine without any clear showing that the findings of the labor arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are bereft of sufficient substantiation.[18]

GR No. 167310

2008-06-17

PENINSULA MANILA

QUISUMBING, J.

Clearly, Alipio was illegally dismissed because petitioners failed on both counts to comply with the twin requisites for a valid termination. She is thus entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits, or their monetary equivalent computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement.[15] Should reinstatement be no longer feasible, Alipio is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month pay for her every year of service in lieu of reinstatement.[16]

GR No. 130864

2007-10-02

MARIA L. HAROLD v. AGAPITO T. ALIBA

QUISUMBING, J.

The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon.[21]

GR No. 167637

2007-09-28

METRO EYE SECURITY v. JULIE V. SALSONA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Thus, we have held[31] that the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Elsewise stated, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[32] A condemnation of dishonesty and disloyalty cannot arise from suspicion spawned by speculative inferences.[33]

GR NO. 162871

2007-01-31

NORSK HYDRO v. BENJAMIN S. ROSALES

QUISUMBING, J.

It should also be stressed that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss of trust and confidence on the responsible officer. It is sufficient that there be some basis for the same, or that the employer 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 of his position.[11] Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states, however, that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[12] More specifically the loss of trust must be founded on clearly established facts.

GR NO. 162468

2007-01-23

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ZENAIDA R. GARAY

QUISUMBING, J.

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners are fundamentally raising a question of fact regarding the appellate court's finding that the loss of trust and confidence was not substantially proved. Thus, petitioners would have us sift through the evidence on record and pass upon whether there is valid ground to dismiss Garay. This clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is the statutory function of the NLRC,[8] and outside the normal terrain of a petition for review.

GR NO. 148021

2006-12-06

SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC

TINGA, J.

(P)etitioner believes that had there been a formal hearing, the arbiter's alleged mistaken reliance on some of the documentary evidence submitted by parties would have been cured and remedied by them, presumably through the presentation of controverting evidence. Evidently, this postulate is not in consonance with the need for speedy disposition of labor cases, for the parties may then willfully withhold their evidence and disclose the same only during the formal hearing, thus creating surprises which could merely complicate the issues and prolong the trial. There is a dire need to lessen technicalities in the process of settling labor disputes."[36] Elementary is the principle that this court is not a trier of facts. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest.[37] As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. In the instant case, the Court finds that the labor arbiter's decision, which was affirmed by both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals cite as basis thereof the evidence presented by both the petitioners and respondents in their pleadings. It is no longer the Court's function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the appellate court trial court on the matter coincide, as in this case at bar.[38]

GR NO. 148544

2006-07-12

FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In addition, the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[16] Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[17] Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.[18] And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[19] In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence[20] or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[21] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[22]

GR NO. 139159

2006-01-31

PHILIPPINE MILITARY VETERANS SECURITY v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Article 282(c) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employee for fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative. An employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interest of the employer and which justifies loss of confidence in the employee.[15] However, the right of an employer to terminate an employee based on loss of confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.[16]

GR NO. 139526

2005-10-25

RAMATEK PHILIPPINES v. MA. ANELIA DE LOS REYES

CARPIO, J.

Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires only that there be at least some basis to justify it. Thus, there must be some evidence to substantiate the claim and form a legal basis for loss of confidence.[26] The employer cannot exercise arbitrarily and without just cause the right to dismiss an employee for loss of trust and confidence.[27]

	GR No. 197011 2015-01-28	ESSENCIA Q. MANARPIIS v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the issue of loss of confidence, we have held that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss as long as the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position.[31] Nonetheless, the right of an employer to dismiss employees on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, however, must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause. Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for dismissal. Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse by the employer of its prerogative, as it can easily be subject to abuse because of its subjective nature, as in the case at bar, and the loss must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from work.[32]
	GR No. 165025 2011-08-31	FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI BERSAMIN, J.
The principle of estoppel, which is based on equity and public policy,[36] dictates that FDC's active participation in both RTC proceedings and its seeking therein affirmative reliefs now precluded it from denying the RTC's jurisdiction. Its acknowledgment of the RTC's jurisdiction and its subsequent denial of such jurisdiction only after an unfavorable judgment were inappropriate and intolerable. The Court abhors the practice of any litigant of submitting a case for decision in the trial court, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking the judgment for lack of jurisdiction if it is not.[37]
	GR No. 174621 2009-01-30	LA UNION CEMENT WORKERS UNION v. NLRC TINGA, J.
the aforestated doctrine without any clear showing that the findings of the labor arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are bereft of sufficient substantiation.[18]
	GR No. 167310 2008-06-17	PENINSULA MANILA QUISUMBING, J.
Clearly, Alipio was illegally dismissed because petitioners failed on both counts to comply with the twin requisites for a valid termination. She is thus entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits, or their monetary equivalent computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement.[15] Should reinstatement be no longer feasible, Alipio is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month pay for her every year of service in lieu of reinstatement.[16]
	GR No. 130864 2007-10-02	MARIA L. HAROLD v. AGAPITO T. ALIBA QUISUMBING, J.
The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon.[21]
	GR No. 167637 2007-09-28	METRO EYE SECURITY v. JULIE V. SALSONA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thus, we have held[31] that the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Elsewise stated, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[32] A condemnation of dishonesty and disloyalty cannot arise from suspicion spawned by speculative inferences.[33]
	GR NO. 162871 2007-01-31	NORSK HYDRO v. BENJAMIN S. ROSALES QUISUMBING, J.
It should also be stressed that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss of trust and confidence on the responsible officer. It is sufficient that there be some basis for the same, or that the employer 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 of his position.[11] Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states, however, that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice; it must be willful. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[12] More specifically the loss of trust must be founded on clearly established facts.
	GR NO. 162468 2007-01-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ZENAIDA R. GARAY QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners are fundamentally raising a question of fact regarding the appellate court's finding that the loss of trust and confidence was not substantially proved. Thus, petitioners would have us sift through the evidence on record and pass upon whether there is valid ground to dismiss Garay. This clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is the statutory function of the NLRC,[8] and outside the normal terrain of a petition for review.
	GR NO. 148021 2006-12-06	SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC TINGA, J.
(P)etitioner believes that had there been a formal hearing, the arbiter's alleged mistaken reliance on some of the documentary evidence submitted by parties would have been cured and remedied by them, presumably through the presentation of controverting evidence. Evidently, this postulate is not in consonance with the need for speedy disposition of labor cases, for the parties may then willfully withhold their evidence and disclose the same only during the formal hearing, thus creating surprises which could merely complicate the issues and prolong the trial. There is a dire need to lessen technicalities in the process of settling labor disputes."[36] Elementary is the principle that this court is not a trier of facts. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest.[37] As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. In the instant case, the Court finds that the labor arbiter's decision, which was affirmed by both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals cite as basis thereof the evidence presented by both the petitioners and respondents in their pleadings. It is no longer the Court's function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the appellate court trial court on the matter coincide, as in this case at bar.[38]
	GR NO. 148544 2006-07-12	FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In addition, the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[16] Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer's whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.[17] Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.[18] And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.[19] In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence[20] or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer.[21] The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[22]
	GR NO. 139159 2006-01-31	PHILIPPINE MILITARY VETERANS SECURITY v. CA CARPIO, J.
Article 282(c) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employee for fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative. An employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interest of the employer and which justifies loss of confidence in the employee.[15] However, the right of an employer to terminate an employee based on loss of confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.[16]
	GR NO. 139526 2005-10-25	RAMATEK PHILIPPINES v. MA. ANELIA DE LOS REYES CARPIO, J.
Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires only that there be at least some basis to justify it. Thus, there must be some evidence to substantiate the claim and form a legal basis for loss of confidence.[26] The employer cannot exercise arbitrarily and without just cause the right to dismiss an employee for loss of trust and confidence.[27]

P.J. LHUILLIER INC. v. NLRC