Lima Land v. Cuevas (G.R. No. 169523; June 16, 2010)
FACTS: In 1996, Lima entered into several lease agreement known as arriendo contracts. Feb 2000, irregularities in arriendo collections were discovered. In September 1, 1999, Private Respondent issued a Memorandum directing Senia to report any information regarding the collections and disbursement of the arriendo funds. May 22, 2002, the initial findings of the investigating panel revealed fraudulent activities and irregularities committed by the Private Respondent relative to the Company funds. Consequently, Private Respondent was served with a notice to explain and was placed under the preventive suspension. Private Respondent received another notice May 23, 2002 charging her with the following: 1) failure to exercise reasonable diligence to inquire about the status of the unremitted arriendo collections; 2) approving a patently false request for reimbursement of representation expenses; and 3) failure to institute sufficient accounting standards, however he failed to appear on the said date. Petitioners gave her until May 30, 2002 to submit her written reply. Subsequently, Lim requested Dy to come to the office and was confronted by Lim and Wellington. Afterwards, on June 5, 2002 Private Respondent requested that the hearing be conducted, but she again failed to attend. Private Respondent submitted her written reply on June 4, 2002. Although Petitioners gave her until June 14, 2002 to submit additional evidence, Private Respondent did not submit any. Petitioners therefore dismissed Private Respondent on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, which lead to the filing of a complaint to the LA who later on dismissed the complaint. It was appealed to the NLRC who reversed the decision then appealed to CA who stated that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion hence the said petition.
ISSUE:
Did petitioners validly dismiss respondent from her employment?
HELD: The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones sideor an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
***
A dismissed employee is not requiredto prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer. Thedetermination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised withfairness and in good faith and after observing due process.As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. This includes managerial personnel entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employers property. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.
DENIED
***
A dismissed employee is not requiredto prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer. Thedetermination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised withfairness and in good faith and after observing due process.As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. This includes managerial personnel entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employers property. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.
DENIED
