G.R. No. 164824 ; April 30, 2008
ROLANDO V. AROMIN, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, XAVIER P. LOINAZ, President, and EDMUNDO A. BARCELON, Senior Vice-President, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rolando V. Aromin was an Assistant Vice-President and head of the Real Property Management Unit (RPMU) of respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). His dismissal stemmed from a botched sale of a bank trust asset to Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. Aromin participated in negotiations with Limketkai. When Limketkai sued BPI for specific performance, Aromin, initially instructed not to appear, later testified in court upon subpoena. His testimony was found by the trial court to support Limketkai’s claim of a perfected sale, contradicting a prior memorandum he co-wrote. BPI subsequently terminated Aromin for willful breach of trust and loss of confidence, citing his testimony and prior alleged performance issues.
Aromin filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, finding the dismissal for a just cause, but awarded financial assistance due to his 26 years of service. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting Aromin to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC decision which upheld Aromin’s dismissal for loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic rests on the nature of loss of confidence as a just cause for termination under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, applicable to employees occupying positions of trust and confidence. Aromin, as an Assistant Vice-President heading a key unit, undeniably held such a position. The breach of trust need not be related to the employee’s routine functions but must be based on a willful act that undermines the employer’s trust.
The Court found that Aromin’s act of giving judicial testimony adverse to BPI’s interest, which contradicted his prior official written account of the same transaction, constituted a willful breach of the trust reposed in him. This act was inimical to his employer’s interest in ongoing litigation. While BPI cited other grounds like poor performance, the decisive ground was this breach of trust. The employer’s loss of confidence need only be based on substantial evidence of an act justifying such loss. The Court held that Aromin’s testimony, which the trial court relied upon to rule against BPI, amply provided a factual basis for the loss of confidence. The subsequent reversal of the trial court’s decision in the Limketkai case did not negate the fact that Aromin’s act at the time of his dismissal was willful and breached his duty of loyalty. Procedural due process was also satisfied as Aromin was given notices and opportunities to explain.