GR L 61232; (December, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-61232-33, December 29, 1983
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR DIOSCORA ARELLANO and BIENVENIDO SOTO, Respondents.
FACTS
Bienvenido Soto, a long-time employee of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) promoted to District Sales Supervisor, was preventively suspended and later sought to be terminated. SMC filed an application for clearance to terminate his employment, alleging serious misconduct involving the “cash refunding of condemned shells.” SMC charged that Soto ordered the condemnation of shells (empty wooden cases) but not all were destroyed. The unconsummated shells were allegedly cash-refunded by subordinate salesmen, with the proceeds amounting to thousands of pesos given to Soto. SMC grounded its application on loss of trust and confidence due to falsification, abuse of authority, and unauthorized removal of records.
The Regional Director granted clearance for termination, finding that SMC had lost trust and confidence in Soto, though she noted puzzling questions due to insufficient concrete evidence like receipts. She ordered SMC to pay Soto either retirement or separation pay. On appeal, the Deputy Minister of Labor set aside this order, directing Soto’s reinstatement with three years’ backwages, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the alleged anomalies.
ISSUE
Whether the Deputy Minister of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Bienvenido Soto, thereby disregarding the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a basis for loss of trust and confidence as a valid ground for dismissal.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the Deputy Minister committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the standard of proof required for dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, particularly for a managerial employee like a District Sales Supervisor. The Court clarified that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. It is sufficient if there is “some basis” for the loss of confidence, or if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe the employee is responsible for misconduct rendering him unworthy of the trust demanded by his position.
The Court found such a basis existed. Soto held a sensitive position requiring full trust, involving supervision of company funds and properties. The allegations, supported by the factual summary, indicated a scheme where condemned shells were not destroyed but cash-refunded, with proceeds linked to Soto. While the Deputy Minister demanded more direct evidence, such as Soto’s physical presence during the refunds or customer receipts, this imposed an unreasonable standard. The Regional Director’s factual evaluation, which noted Soto’s evidence consisted of “self-serving denials” and that trust had been eroded, was more aligned with the applicable legal principle. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated the Regional Director’s order, allowing termination with the grant of separation benefits.