G.R. No. 173012 ; June 13, 2012
DOLORES T. ESGUERRA, Petitioner, vs. VALLE VERDE COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and ERNESTO VILLALUNA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dolores T. Esguerra was employed by respondent Valle Verde Country Club, Inc., eventually promoted to Cost Control Supervisor. On January 15, 2000, she was tasked to oversee a seminar event where food and drinks were sold. The following day, management discovered that cash sales from one function room were not remitted, and there were unauthorized food charges to a participant’s account. After an investigation, Valle Verde sent Esguerra a memorandum requiring her to explain the non-remittance and placed her under preventive suspension. In her response, she denied misappropriation, attributing the loss to her daughter who was also assigned as a food checker, and claimed she later settled the amount. She also explained the unauthorized charging as an act of charity from the participant. Valle Verde found her explanations unsatisfactory and terminated her employment for loss of trust and confidence.
Esguerra filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, a decision initially modified by the NLRC to grant separation pay but later reinstated upon Valle Verde’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s finding of valid dismissal. Esguerra elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing she was not a supervisory employee vested with trust and that procedural due process was not observed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the validity of Esguerra’s dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling the dismissal was valid. On procedure, the Court found compliance with the two-notice rule. The first memorandum adequately informed her of the charges and allowed her to explain. A formal hearing is not mandatory; “ample opportunity to be heard” means any meaningful chance to answer charges, which she was given. The second notice conveyed the termination decision.
Substantively, loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissal of employees charged with care and custody of employer’s assets. As Cost Control Supervisor, Esguerra held a position of trust responsible for cash sales accountability. Her failure to promptly report and account for the missing proceeds, settling it only after being confronted, constituted a breach of that trust. Her defense blaming her daughter was unavailing as the ultimate accountability was hers. The act was work-related and demonstrated unfitness. Her length of service could not absolve her of the breach. Thus, both substantive and procedural requirements for a lawful dismissal were satisfied.