G.R. No. 115944 June 9, 1997
ELVIRA C. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AMERICAN MICRO-SYSTEMS, INC., (AMI-PHILIPPINES, INC.) RANDALL L. COOK, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elvira C. Gonzales was a Supervisor at American Microsystems, Inc. (AMI-PHIL.) since January 29, 1981. In 1990, she was sent to Japan for training. In November 1991, she signed a contract for TAB Inspection Training in Japan with NIKON TAB (NTI) of Japan, acting as group leader for four trainees. Her contract stipulated a $900 monthly training allowance, but she alleges she was promised $1,500. While in Japan, she complained and requested the additional $600. NTI Japan, through Ms. Ebi Hara, gave her a Yen equivalent of $300 as additional monthly allowance, telling her to accept it as she was the only one entitled to it. Petitioner received this $300 monthly. In May 1992, AMI-PHIL. received reports that this monthly allowance did not reach the other trainees. On June 2, 1992, AMI-PHIL. required petitioner to explain her alleged misappropriation of $1,500 ($300 x 5 months). In her June 4, 1992 response, she admitted receiving the $300 but explained it was a bonus and additional benefit for her as group leader per her request. On June 10, 1992, AMI-PHIL. terminated her services for “defrauding or attempting to defraud in any manner the company of its funds or property.” Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC reversed the decision, finding her guilty of dishonesty and misappropriation constituting a breach of trust and confidence.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner Elvira C. Gonzales on the ground of loss of trust and confidence was valid.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the NLRC decision, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court found the basis for loss of trust and confidence unclear and insufficient to warrant dismissal. Petitioner understood the $300 monthly allowance was for her alone, as she was told to accept it and was entitled to it as group leader. There was no clear-cut instruction, contractual provision, company policy, or practice indicating the allowance was for the whole group. Her letter-explanation showed her good faith belief that the amount was a bonus for her. The penalty of dismissal was too harsh, as it was not clearly shown she acted in bad faith or with malice. Her offer to return the money did not constitute an admission of guilt but emphasized her good faith. Considering her eleven years of service, the infraction did not constitute an act of defrauding the company.