G.R. No. 231138. July 31, 2017
THIRD DIVISION: [G.R. No. 231138, July 31, 2017] MARCELO M. GAMOS VS. FLAVOR FOOD PRODUCTS AND ERNESTO CARLOS, JR., PLANT MANAGER.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] dated November 15, 2016 and Resolution[2] dated April 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141595. The assailed rulings affirmed the Decision[3] dated January 14, 2015 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and its Resolution dated May 15, 2015, which reversed and set aside the Decision[4] dated June 30, 2014 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) finding petitioner illegally dismissed from employment.
Petitioner further alleged that, being a warehouseman, his job was limited only to the preparation of documents needed for the disposal of scrap materials; that, contrary to the findings of respondents, he did not directly negotiate with the buyers since prior to the loading and unloading of the scrap materials, the approval of the manager is necessary; and that since his suspension and dismissal have no basis, he is entitled to separation pay and 13th month pay.[8]
In their Position Paper, on the other hand, respondents averred that complainant was respondent FFPII's Warehouse Supervisor, whose duties and responsibilities included: (a) managing and receiving, shipping, handling, distribution and storage of all respondent FFPII's products; (b) ensuring that all production orders are shipped to customers in a timely manner, in adherence to delivery schedules; (c) maintaining strict control over inventory levels in order to meet internal and external demand of products; (d) maintain appropriate and complete documentation of respondent FFPII's products; and (e) supervising a team of warehouse employees. Petitioner also supervised and provided assistance in the disposal of respondent FFPII's scrap materials by preparing the price list from the potential scrap buyers; informing the buyers of the availability of scrap materials; and preparing and issuing gate passes that will allow scrap buyers to leave respondent FFPII's premises.[9]
Respondents alleged that an audit of respondent FFPII's income and expenses was made and the audit revealed that there were several anomalies involving scrap sales. Thereafter, respondent FFPII conducted its own investigations. Ms. Grace Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), its former Accounting Supervisor, and certain scrap buyers claimed that petitioner was receiving payment of scrap sales whenever Dela Cruz was absent. The scrap buyers also revealed that before they would go to respondent FFPII's Accounting Office for payment, petitioner would ask for their money, which he would put inside a sealed envelope.
After due investigation and careful consideration of the evidence and the statements of petitioner in his explanation and during the administrative hearing, it was found out that: (1) petitioner has committed gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a Warehouse Supervisor when he admitted that he still issued gate passes to scrap buyers despite their insufficient payment; and (2) he lied during the administrative investigation when he was asked a simple and direct question regarding putting scrap sales payments inside envelopes. Thereafter, petitioner was meted the penalty of dismissal from service for serious misconduct, habitual and gross negligence in the performance of his duties which resulted in the loss of trust and confidence reposed in him by respondents.
The LA ruled in favor of petitioner and ruled that there is no substantial ground to uphold petitioner's dismissal as valid and legal under the premises. Respondents were not able to provide substantial evidence to prove the violations committed by petitioner. Hence, the dismissal of petitioner is illegal. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated June 30, 2014 reads:
The NLRC issued a Decision dated January 14, 2015 in favor of respondents. The NLRC ruled that petitioner was validly dismissed for serious misconduct and gross and habitual neglect of duty which justified respondents' loss of trust and confidence in him. It is clear that petitioner committed willful breach of the trust reposed in him by the respondents. Petitioner, as a Warehouse Supervisor, is entrusted with the management and handling of respondent FFPII's warehouse goods. His acts of allowing the scraps to be taken out of the company's premises despite deficiency in payments and selling of wooden pallets to scrap buyers despite knowing that it is prohibited are reasons enough for his termination from his employment.[11] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
In its assailed Decision dated November 15, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC's finding that respondent has adequately proven that petitioner's dismissal was for a valid and just cause, based on serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duty and willful breach of trust. Petitioner's position as warehouse supervisor is a position of responsibility and one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Therefore, any breach of the trust [reposed] upon him can be a valid cause for his dismissal.[13] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
Petitioner anchors his plea for the reversal of the assailed Decision on the resolution of the following issues:
The petition is unmeritorious.Based on the records of the case, the CA did not err in affirming the findings of the NLRC that petitioner was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. According to jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence will validate an employee's dismissal when it is shown that: (a) the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence; and (b) he performs an act that would justify such loss of trust and confidence.[17]
In Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas,[18] We discussed the difference in the application of the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence on managerial employees and rank-and-file personnel. In the said case, this Court held that, as ground for valid dismissal, loss of trust and confidence with respect to rank-and-file personnel requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer is not enough. With respect to a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. The following excerpt from Lima is instructive -
As found by both the NLRC and the CA, petitioner committed the following: (1) he had allowed the scraps to be taken out of FFPII's premises despite the deficiency in payments; (2) he sold wooden pallets to scrap buyers despite knowing that it is prohibited; and (3) he received commissions from every sale of jumbo bag and plastic pallet without proper permission from respondents.[22]
Considering the foregoing, this Court agrees that there was a just cause for the petitioner's dismissal. Respondents were able to prove by substantial evidence the infractions committed by petitioner which led to respondents' loss of trust and confidence in him.
Jurisprudence emphasizes that dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest not only of the management but also of labor. As a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest, a company has the right to dismiss its erring employees. An employer cannot be compelled to continue employing an employee guilty of acts inimical to the employer's interest, justifying loss of confidence in him.[23] In this case, let it be remembered that petitioner was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee as he was a Warehouse Supervisor in charge of respondent FFPII's scrap materials. It would be harsh to require respondents to retain in their company an officer who has admitted committing acts which are inimical to the business of the company.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed November 15, 2016 Decision and April 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141595,the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo, pp. 45-58. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
[2] Id. at 60.
[3] Id. at 283-304. Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go.
[4] Id. at 220-229. Penned by Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Mariano L. Bactin.
[5] Id. at 46.
[6] Id. at 47.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 48.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 228-229.
[11] Id. at 301.
[12] Id. at 303.
[13] Id. at 57
[14] Id. at 58.
[15] Id. at 21.
[16] Id. at 22-23.
[17] "Cebu People's Multi-purpose Cooperative v. Carbonilla, Jr., G.R. No. 212070, January 27, 2016, 782 SCRA 418.
[18] G.R. No. 169523, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 36.
[19] Id. at 46-47.
[20] Id. at 297-298.
[2l] Id. at 57.
[22] Id. at 54.
[23]Yabut v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 190436, January 16, 2012, 663 SCRA 92.
The Facts
On December 17, 2013, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, non-payment of 13th month pay and separation pay with a claim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against respondents Flavor Food Products International, Inc. (FFPII) and Ernesto Carlos, Jr. (Ernesto), Plant Manager.[5]
In his Position Paper, petitioner alleged that he was hired by respondent FFPII in September 1991 as a Toll Packer and, in June 1998, he became the Warehouse Supervisor who was in charge of the preparation of documents for the disposal of scrap materials of respondents. Sometime in May or June 2013, respondent FFPII discovered his alleged involvement in the unauthorized sale of scrap materials and stealing of company properties.[6] On July 22, 2013, he received a Notice to Explain from respondent FFPII asking him to explain in writing the following accusations against him: (a) securing materials or benefits by means of fraudulent order; (b) stealing or attempting to steal from the company; (c) committing other violations of laws punishable with imprisonment; (d) willful disobedience; (e) dereliction or negligence of duty; (f) serious misconduct of the employee; (g) gross and habitual neglect by employee; and (h) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him.
On September 9, 2013, he received a letter from respondent Ernesto informing him that he was placed on preventive suspension and another Notice to Explain his alleged violations of company rules.[7]
On December 17, 2013, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, non-payment of 13th month pay and separation pay with a claim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against respondents Flavor Food Products International, Inc. (FFPII) and Ernesto Carlos, Jr. (Ernesto), Plant Manager.[5]
In his Position Paper, petitioner alleged that he was hired by respondent FFPII in September 1991 as a Toll Packer and, in June 1998, he became the Warehouse Supervisor who was in charge of the preparation of documents for the disposal of scrap materials of respondents. Sometime in May or June 2013, respondent FFPII discovered his alleged involvement in the unauthorized sale of scrap materials and stealing of company properties.[6] On July 22, 2013, he received a Notice to Explain from respondent FFPII asking him to explain in writing the following accusations against him: (a) securing materials or benefits by means of fraudulent order; (b) stealing or attempting to steal from the company; (c) committing other violations of laws punishable with imprisonment; (d) willful disobedience; (e) dereliction or negligence of duty; (f) serious misconduct of the employee; (g) gross and habitual neglect by employee; and (h) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him.
On September 9, 2013, he received a letter from respondent Ernesto informing him that he was placed on preventive suspension and another Notice to Explain his alleged violations of company rules.[7]
Petitioner further alleged that, being a warehouseman, his job was limited only to the preparation of documents needed for the disposal of scrap materials; that, contrary to the findings of respondents, he did not directly negotiate with the buyers since prior to the loading and unloading of the scrap materials, the approval of the manager is necessary; and that since his suspension and dismissal have no basis, he is entitled to separation pay and 13th month pay.[8]
In their Position Paper, on the other hand, respondents averred that complainant was respondent FFPII's Warehouse Supervisor, whose duties and responsibilities included: (a) managing and receiving, shipping, handling, distribution and storage of all respondent FFPII's products; (b) ensuring that all production orders are shipped to customers in a timely manner, in adherence to delivery schedules; (c) maintaining strict control over inventory levels in order to meet internal and external demand of products; (d) maintain appropriate and complete documentation of respondent FFPII's products; and (e) supervising a team of warehouse employees. Petitioner also supervised and provided assistance in the disposal of respondent FFPII's scrap materials by preparing the price list from the potential scrap buyers; informing the buyers of the availability of scrap materials; and preparing and issuing gate passes that will allow scrap buyers to leave respondent FFPII's premises.[9]
Respondents alleged that an audit of respondent FFPII's income and expenses was made and the audit revealed that there were several anomalies involving scrap sales. Thereafter, respondent FFPII conducted its own investigations. Ms. Grace Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), its former Accounting Supervisor, and certain scrap buyers claimed that petitioner was receiving payment of scrap sales whenever Dela Cruz was absent. The scrap buyers also revealed that before they would go to respondent FFPII's Accounting Office for payment, petitioner would ask for their money, which he would put inside a sealed envelope.
After due investigation and careful consideration of the evidence and the statements of petitioner in his explanation and during the administrative hearing, it was found out that: (1) petitioner has committed gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a Warehouse Supervisor when he admitted that he still issued gate passes to scrap buyers despite their insufficient payment; and (2) he lied during the administrative investigation when he was asked a simple and direct question regarding putting scrap sales payments inside envelopes. Thereafter, petitioner was meted the penalty of dismissal from service for serious misconduct, habitual and gross negligence in the performance of his duties which resulted in the loss of trust and confidence reposed in him by respondents.
The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
The LA ruled in favor of petitioner and ruled that there is no substantial ground to uphold petitioner's dismissal as valid and legal under the premises. Respondents were not able to provide substantial evidence to prove the violations committed by petitioner. Hence, the dismissal of petitioner is illegal. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated June 30, 2014 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complainant, MARCELO M. GAMOS is hereby declared to be ILLEGALLY DISMISSED from the employment as "Warehouse Supervisor" by the respondents.Thus, respondents appealed to the NLRC.
Respondent, FLAVOR FOOD PRODUCTS, is SOLELY LIABLE to pay the complainant his monetary awards enumerated hereunder:
SO ORDERED. [10]
- Complainant's BACKWAGES (October 28, 2013 - June 30, 2014 = 8 months) in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P197,200.00);
- Complainant's SEPARATION PAY (Sept. 1991 - June 30, 2014) = 23 years in the total amount of FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P566,950.00);
- Complainant's MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in the total amount of SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P600,000.00);
- Complainant's ATTORNEY'S FEES in the amount of SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS (P76,415.00);
- All other claims of the complainant are hereby ordered DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of merit and legal basis.
The Ruling of the NLRC
The NLRC issued a Decision dated January 14, 2015 in favor of respondents. The NLRC ruled that petitioner was validly dismissed for serious misconduct and gross and habitual neglect of duty which justified respondents' loss of trust and confidence in him. It is clear that petitioner committed willful breach of the trust reposed in him by the respondents. Petitioner, as a Warehouse Supervisor, is entrusted with the management and handling of respondent FFPII's warehouse goods. His acts of allowing the scraps to be taken out of the company's premises despite deficiency in payments and selling of wooden pallets to scrap buyers despite knowing that it is prohibited are reasons enough for his termination from his employment.[11] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, respondents' appeal is hereby GRANTED and the Labor Arbiter's Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case for illegal dismissal and money claims of complainant is dismissed for lack of merit.The NLRC denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
SO ORDERED.[12]
The Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision dated November 15, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC's finding that respondent has adequately proven that petitioner's dismissal was for a valid and just cause, based on serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duty and willful breach of trust. Petitioner's position as warehouse supervisor is a position of responsibility and one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Therefore, any breach of the trust [reposed] upon him can be a valid cause for his dismissal.[13] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied by the CA in a Resolution[15] dated April 6, 2017. Hence, this petition.
SO ORDERED.[14]
The Issues
Petitioner anchors his plea for the reversal of the assailed Decision on the resolution of the following issues:
I. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious and reversible error in affirming the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission which found petitioner to have been validly dismissed based on the ground of willful breach of trust under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code; and
II. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious and reversible error in not finding petitioner to have been entitled to his backwages and other monetary claims.[16]
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is unmeritorious.Based on the records of the case, the CA did not err in affirming the findings of the NLRC that petitioner was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. According to jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence will validate an employee's dismissal when it is shown that: (a) the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence; and (b) he performs an act that would justify such loss of trust and confidence.[17]
In Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas,[18] We discussed the difference in the application of the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence on managerial employees and rank-and-file personnel. In the said case, this Court held that, as ground for valid dismissal, loss of trust and confidence with respect to rank-and-file personnel requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer is not enough. With respect to a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. The following excerpt from Lima is instructive -
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 employer's property. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.Applying the foregoing, there is no doubt that the first requisite is present as petitioner holds a position of trust and confidence since he is in charge of the custody and management of respondent's FFPIFs scrap materials. In fact, both the NLRC and the CA have reached this finding. As aptly held by the NLRC, viz.:
It must be noted, however, that in a plethora of cases, this Court has distinguished the treatment of managerial employees from that of rank-and-file personnel, insofar as the application of the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence is concerned. Thus, with respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence, as ground for valid dismissal, requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. But as regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Hence, in the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has 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 the trust and confidence demanded of his position.
On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence as a ground of dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. It should" not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper, and unjustified. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought intended to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith. Let it not be forgotten that what is at stake is the means of livelihood, the name, and the reputation of the employee. To countenance an arbitrary exercise of that prerogative is to negate the employee's constitutional right to security of tenure.[19]
xxxx [CJomplainant's position is one of trust and confidence. He was employed by FFPII as a Warehouse Supervisor, whose duties and responsibilities include, among others, the supervision and assistance in the disposal of FFPIFs scrap materials by preparing the price list from the potential scrap buyers; informing the buyers of the availability of scrap materials; and preparing and issuing the gate passes that will allow scrap buyers to leave the FFPIFs premises. As a Warehouse Supervisor, complainant is undeniably considered an employee occupying a position of trust and confidence and as such, was expected to act with utmost honesty and fidelity.[20]The CA likewise stated that petitioner held a position of utmost trust and confidence, to wit:
There can be no question that petitioner was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee. As warehouse supervisor, his duties included, among others, managing and disposal of FFPII's scrap materials. Undoubtedly, petitioner's position as warehouse supervisor is a position of responsibility and one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. The position carried with it the duty to observe proper company procedures in the fulfillment of . his job, as it related closely to the financial interests of the company. It follows, therefore, that any breach of the trust imposed upon him can be a valid cause for dismissal. Fairness dictates that FFPII should not be allowed to continue with the employment of petitioner who has breached the confidence reposed in him.[21]Anent the second requisite, We find that petitioner was able to prove that petitioner's dismissal was for just cause, based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts as required by jurisprudence.
As found by both the NLRC and the CA, petitioner committed the following: (1) he had allowed the scraps to be taken out of FFPII's premises despite the deficiency in payments; (2) he sold wooden pallets to scrap buyers despite knowing that it is prohibited; and (3) he received commissions from every sale of jumbo bag and plastic pallet without proper permission from respondents.[22]
Considering the foregoing, this Court agrees that there was a just cause for the petitioner's dismissal. Respondents were able to prove by substantial evidence the infractions committed by petitioner which led to respondents' loss of trust and confidence in him.
Jurisprudence emphasizes that dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest not only of the management but also of labor. As a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest, a company has the right to dismiss its erring employees. An employer cannot be compelled to continue employing an employee guilty of acts inimical to the employer's interest, justifying loss of confidence in him.[23] In this case, let it be remembered that petitioner was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee as he was a Warehouse Supervisor in charge of respondent FFPII's scrap materials. It would be harsh to require respondents to retain in their company an officer who has admitted committing acts which are inimical to the business of the company.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed November 15, 2016 Decision and April 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141595,the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo, pp. 45-58. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
[2] Id. at 60.
[3] Id. at 283-304. Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go.
[4] Id. at 220-229. Penned by Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Mariano L. Bactin.
[5] Id. at 46.
[6] Id. at 47.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 48.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 228-229.
[11] Id. at 301.
[12] Id. at 303.
[13] Id. at 57
[14] Id. at 58.
[15] Id. at 21.
[16] Id. at 22-23.
[17] "Cebu People's Multi-purpose Cooperative v. Carbonilla, Jr., G.R. No. 212070, January 27, 2016, 782 SCRA 418.
[18] G.R. No. 169523, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 36.
[19] Id. at 46-47.
[20] Id. at 297-298.
[2l] Id. at 57.
[22] Id. at 54.
[23]Yabut v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 190436, January 16, 2012, 663 SCRA 92.
