GR 125212; (June, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125212. June 28, 1999.
SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE AND/OR EUGENIO BALUGO/CIRIACO MESALUCHA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (5TH DIVISION) AND ELSIE ESCULANO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative (SURNECO) employed private respondent Elsie Esculano as its Personnel Officer. In December 1991, a former employee, Cosette Quinto, wrote to management requesting separation benefits. In March 1992, Esculano, upon the General Manager’s request, reviewed Quinto’s case and submitted a report concluding that Quinto was dismissed without due process, recommending either separation pay or reinstatement. Copies were furnished to “file, PS and 201.” Quinto later filed an illegal dismissal complaint, attaching Esculano’s report to her position paper. The complaint was dismissed on prescription grounds.
SURNECO charged Esculano with acts prejudicial to the company for her unauthorized review and allegedly furnishing Quinto a copy of the report, leading to litigation. Esculano explained the review was within her duties as Personnel Officer. She was subsequently dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal, but the NLRC reversed, ordering reinstatement with backwages. Petitioners filed this certiorari action.
ISSUE
Was the dismissal of Elsie Esculano on the ground of loss of trust and confidence valid?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, dismissing the petition. For loss of confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal of a managerial employee, the breach of trust must be willful, founded on clearly established facts. The Court found no substantial evidence that Esculano willfully breached her duty or furnished her report directly to Quinto. Her act of reviewing the case and making recommendations fell within her functions as Personnel Officer to advise management on personnel matters. Furnishing copies to “file, PS and 201” indicated internal routing, not external circulation to a former employee.
The fact that Quinto used the report in her complaint did not conclusively prove Esculano was the source. At most, Esculano’s act was careless, not intentional or willful. Loss of confidence cannot rest on mere speculation or the employer’s subjective assessment. The employer must prove by concrete evidence that the employee performed an act justifying the withdrawal of trust. Here, petitioners failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal.