G.R. No. 166554 November 27, 2008
JULITO SAGALES, petitioner, vs. RUSTAN’S COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Julito Sagales was employed by respondent Rustan’s Commercial Corporation from October 1970 until his termination on July 26, 2001. At the time of dismissal, he was the Chief Cook at the Yum Yum Tree Coffee Shop in Rustan’s Supermarket, Makati City. On June 18, 2001, security guards apprehended Sagales taking out a plastic bag from the supermarket without a receipt. The bag contained 1.335 kilos of squid heads worth P50.00. He was detained but later released. An inquest for qualified theft was dismissed by the City Prosecutor for lack of evidence, as Sagales claimed he paid for the items and presented a receipt, explaining he misplaced it when accosted. Despite this, Rustan’s conducted an administrative investigation and dismissed Sagales for loss of trust and confidence. Sagales filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling his position was supervisory and involved trust. The NLRC reversed, declaring the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement and backwages, finding him a rank-and-file employee and the evidence insufficient. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling his position was supervisory, trust was breached, and dismissal was proper.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s position as Chief Cook is supervisory in nature, covered by the trust and confidence rule.
2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to establish loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal.
3. Whether the penalty of dismissal is proper.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court held that petitioner’s position as Chief Cook is supervisory in nature. A chief cook directs food preparation, determines operational timing, and inspects equipment, requiring independent judgment. This falls under the definition of a supervisor. The Court cited Concorde Hotel v. Court of Appeals, which held that even an assistant cook holds a position of trust due to responsibilities over food supplies and custody. Thus, petitioner is covered by the trust and confidence rule applicable to supervisory employees.
2. Yes. The Court found sufficient evidence to establish loss of trust and confidence. Petitioner was caught in possession of company property without immediately presenting a receipt. His act of taking out the squid heads, regardless of value, constituted dishonesty. For employees in positions of trust, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; substantial evidence suffices. The dismissal by the prosecutor does not bar administrative action, as the standards of proof differ.
3. Yes. The penalty of dismissal is proper. The Court ruled that loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissing supervisory employees. The act of dishonesty, even involving small value, breaches the trust inherent in his position. While petitioner had almost 31 years of service and received awards, the Court held that length of service cannot mitigate the penalty for dishonesty, as it is a betrayal of trust. No separation pay was awarded, as the dismissal was for just cause involving theft of employer property.