G.R. No. 169260 ; March 23, 2011
SANDEN AIRCON PHILIPPINES and ANTONIO ANG, Petitioners, vs. LORESSA P. ROSALES, Respondent.

FACTS

Sanden Aircon Philippines employed Loressa P. Rosales as a Management Information System Department Secretary in August 1992. On December 26, 1996, she was promoted to Data Custodian and Coordinator, a position that gave her access to all computer programs and marketing data, including Delivery Receipt Transaction files, and the authority to open, edit, copy, and create back-up copies of files. On May 16, 1997, Sanden discovered that the marketing delivery receipt transactions computer files were missing. An internal investigation by the MIS Department, via a memorandum dated May 19, 1997, found that: (1) Rosales instructed marketing staff to log out at noon for a back-up that did not occur; (2) there was no updated back-up of the file, which was her responsibility; (3) server logs showed Rosales was the only user logged into the system from 12:05 p.m. to 12:21 p.m. when the data corruption occurred; and (4) she had full rights to add, edit, and delete all files. The report concluded it was “highly probable” she was the culprit. On June 26, 1997, Sanden charged Rosales with data sabotage and absences without leave (AWOL). She denied the charges in her reply. After an administrative investigation, Sanden terminated her employment on July 17, 1997, citing loss of trust and confidence due to deliberate data sabotage. Rosales filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, finding no direct evidence of sabotage or AWOL and awarded backwages and separation pay. The NLRC initially affirmed this but later reversed itself in a subsequent resolution, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals granted Rosales’s petition for certiorari, reinstating the NLRC’s first resolution that found illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent Loressa P. Rosales was illegally dismissed by petitioners Sanden Aircon Philippines and Antonio Ang on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while an employer has the discretion to dismiss an employee for loss of trust and confidence, this ground must not be used as a cloak for illegal dismissal. For dismissal on this ground to be valid, two conditions must be met: (1) the employee must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and (2) there must be an act justifying the loss of trust. The Court found that Rosales, as Data Custodian and Coordinator, undoubtedly held a position of trust. However, the evidence presented by Sanden to prove she committed the act (data sabotage) justifying the loss of trust was insufficient. The company’s case rested on circumstantial evidence—the server logs showing she was the only one logged in during the period the files were deleted and her responsibility for back-ups. The Court ruled this did not constitute substantial evidence, which requires more than mere suspicions or probabilities. There was no direct evidence, such as a witness or a clear audit trail, proving she intentionally deleted the files. The charge of AWOL was also unsubstantiated. Therefore, Sanden failed to discharge its burden of proving the dismissal was for a just cause. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. The awards of backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (due to animosity) were upheld.