G.R. No. 114848 . December 14, 1995.
Alex A. Falguera, petitioner, vs. Hon. Labor Arbiter Cornelio L. Linsangan, National Labor Relations Commission, Philippine Refining Co. (PRC) or Unilever-PRC, and Jesus Javelona, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alex Falguera was a warehouseman for Philippine Refining Co. (PRC), a position of trust involving custody and release of company materials. An internal audit in 1991 discovered anomalies in several Materials Requisition (MR) forms. Original white copies submitted to accounting contained insertions for high-value Parker packing materials, while the green copies retained by the requisitioning department did not. The audit concluded the original MRs were tampered with after approval, causing the company a loss exceeding P100,000. The investigation implicated Falguera and another storeman, Felipe Viado, who admitted guilt and offered to testify against Falguera.
Falguera was placed under preventive suspension and later summoned to explain. He defended himself by claiming he merely released items as written on the original MRs. After considering his defense, the company terminated his employment for loss of confidence and breach of trust. Falguera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which the Labor Arbiter dismissed, finding the dismissal valid. The NLRC affirmed this decision but awarded Falguera P7,000 as nominal damages for the company’s procedural lapse in not providing a written notice of charge prior to the termination meeting.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the validity of Falguera’s dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision. The legal logic rests on the nature of Falguera’s position and the substantial evidence of his misconduct. As a warehouseman, he held a fiduciary position where trust was paramount. Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, provided the breach is willful and the employee holds a position of trust.
The Court found substantial evidence, not mere suspicion, to support the finding of tampering. The audit revealed specific, altered MRs in Falguera’s custody, and his co-employee’s admission provided corroborative evidence. His defense was deemed unpersuasive against the detailed audit findings. The requirement of due process was substantially complied with, as Falguera was given an opportunity to explain during the investigation. While the company committed a procedural lapse by not furnishing a prior written notice of the charge, this did not render the dismissal illegal but merely warranted the nominal damages awarded by the NLRC. The Court held that the NLRC’s findings were supported by evidence and thus no grave abuse of discretion attended its decision.