Management prerogative; employer's correlative right.
Evelina E. Belarso Vs. Quality House, Inc. and/or Carmelita Go.
[G.R. No. 209983. November 10, 2021]
✍️👨⚖️ HERNANDO, J.
DOCTRINES
• The Court may review the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC when they are conflicting.
While the Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of questions of law, this rule admits of exceptions, one of which is when the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC are conflicting. Since such exception is present in this case, We review the contradictory factual findings.
• Loss or breach of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination by an employer, is based on Article 297 of the Labor Code:
ARTICLE 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
x x x x
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative[.] (End of emphasis).
Jurisprudence provides for two conditions before an employee may be dismissed for such cause:
First. Breach of trust and confidence; and
Second. There must be some basis for the loss of trust and confidence.
As to the first, the breach of trust and confidence must be premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence, where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. The essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized is the betrayal of such trust.
In the case of Wesleyan University Phils. v. Reyes, employees vested with trust and confidence were divided into two classes: (a) the managerial employees; and (b) the fiduciary rank-and-file employees. As explained by the Court:
"To the first class belong the managerial employees or those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions. The second class includes those who in the normal and routine exercise of their functions regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. Cashiers, auditors, and property custodians are some of the employees in the second class."
As to the second, there must be some basis for the loss of trust and confidence. The employer must present clear and convincing proof of an actual breach of duty committed by the employee by establishing the facts and incidents upon which the loss of confidence in the employee may fairly be made to rest. This means that "the employer must establish the existence of an act justifying the loss of trust and confidence." Otherwise, employees will be left at the mercy of their employers.
• Notarized Documents.
Belarso also assails the affidavits executed by the guards and her co-employees for being similarly worded and executed on the same day, and for being dated two months after the incident. However, these do not automatically invalidate the contents of the affidavits. Being duly notarized, they carry with them the presumption of regularity and authenticity which may be rebutted only by "strong, complete and conclusive proof." This, Belarso was unable to present.
• Doctrine of commensurate of penalty.
Belarso finally argues that the penalty is too harsh considering her 34 years of service in the company. However, length of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer.
Under the present circumstances, length of service only aggravates Belarso's offense. First, she held a position of trust and confidence, overseeing the custody of the raw materials she tried to steal.
As a supervisor, greater trust was placed on her by QHI.
Second, her infraction affected the very essence of loyalty and honesty which all employees owe to their employers. It was serious, grave, and reflected adversely on her character.
• Management prerogative; employer's correlative right.
"In fine, We find Belarso's dismissal for loss of trust and confidence valid. Indeed, "[w]hile the State can regulate the right of an employer to select and discharge his or her employees, an employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee in whom there has been a legitimate loss of trust and confidence."
RULING
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The July 10, 2013 Decision and November 4, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 126064 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Evelina E. Belarso's dismissal is valid. No pronouncement as to cost.
Case No. 4 GR No. 209983 2021-11-10
-----
If you believe this Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking Ads once a day.
This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.
Comments
Post a Comment