Case Digest: Blue Sky v. Blas
G.R. No. 190559 : March 7, 2012
BLUE SKY TRADING COMPANY, INC. and/or JOSE TANTIANSU and LINDA TANTIANSU, Petitioners, v. ARLENE P. BLAS and JOSEPH D. SILVANO, Respondents.
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
The respondents Arlene P. Blas (Arlene) and Joseph D. Silvano (Joseph) were regular employees of petitioner Blue Sky and they respectively held the positions of stock clerk and warehouse helper before they were dismissed from service. Blue Sky issued to Arlene, Joseph, Jayde and Wilfredo notices of dismissal for cause stating therein that evidence reveal that they had conspired with each other to commit theft against company property. Blue Sky had lost its trust and confidence on them and as an act of self-preservation, their termination from service was in order. Arlene, Joseph, Helario, Jayde and Wilfredo filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal. Meanwhile, an entrapment operation was conducted by the police during which Jayde and Helario were caught allegedly attempting to sell to an operative an ultrasound probe worth around P400,000.00 belonging to Blue Sky. On April 22, 2005, Quezon City Inquest Prosecutor Arleen Tagaban issued a resolution recommending the filing in court of criminal charges against Jayde and Helario. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint relative to Helario, Jayde and Wilfredo as a consequence of their filing of the affidavits of desistance. As to Arlene and Joseph, the LA denied their claims of illegal suspension and dismissal. The NLRC affirmed the LAs decision. On appeal by Arlene and Joseph, the CA reversed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct or dishonesty is required to justify loss of confidence as a valid cause for dismissal.
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.
LABOR LAW
In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employees termination from service is for a just and valid cause. The employers case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of that adduced by the employee, in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.
For there to be a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the breach of trust must be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse. In the case at bar, mere substantial evidence and not proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to justify the dismissal from service of an employee charged with theft of company property. However, there is no error in the CA's findings that the petitioners had not adequately proven by substantial evidence that Arlene and Joseph indeed participated or cooperated in the commission of theft relative to the six missing intensifying screens so as to justify the latter's termination from employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
DENIED
BLUE SKY TRADING COMPANY, INC. and/or JOSE TANTIANSU and LINDA TANTIANSU, Petitioners, v. ARLENE P. BLAS and JOSEPH D. SILVANO, Respondents.
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
The respondents Arlene P. Blas (Arlene) and Joseph D. Silvano (Joseph) were regular employees of petitioner Blue Sky and they respectively held the positions of stock clerk and warehouse helper before they were dismissed from service. Blue Sky issued to Arlene, Joseph, Jayde and Wilfredo notices of dismissal for cause stating therein that evidence reveal that they had conspired with each other to commit theft against company property. Blue Sky had lost its trust and confidence on them and as an act of self-preservation, their termination from service was in order. Arlene, Joseph, Helario, Jayde and Wilfredo filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal. Meanwhile, an entrapment operation was conducted by the police during which Jayde and Helario were caught allegedly attempting to sell to an operative an ultrasound probe worth around P400,000.00 belonging to Blue Sky. On April 22, 2005, Quezon City Inquest Prosecutor Arleen Tagaban issued a resolution recommending the filing in court of criminal charges against Jayde and Helario. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint relative to Helario, Jayde and Wilfredo as a consequence of their filing of the affidavits of desistance. As to Arlene and Joseph, the LA denied their claims of illegal suspension and dismissal. The NLRC affirmed the LAs decision. On appeal by Arlene and Joseph, the CA reversed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct or dishonesty is required to justify loss of confidence as a valid cause for dismissal.
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.
LABOR LAW
In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employees termination from service is for a just and valid cause. The employers case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of that adduced by the employee, in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.
For there to be a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the breach of trust must be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse. In the case at bar, mere substantial evidence and not proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to justify the dismissal from service of an employee charged with theft of company property. However, there is no error in the CA's findings that the petitioners had not adequately proven by substantial evidence that Arlene and Joseph indeed participated or cooperated in the commission of theft relative to the six missing intensifying screens so as to justify the latter's termination from employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
DENIED
