G.R. No. 169712 ; March 14, 2008
MA. WENELITA TIRAZONA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE EDS-TECHNO SERVICE INC. (PET INC.) AND/OR KEN KUBOTA, MAMORU ONO and JUNICHI HIROSE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Wenelita Tirazona was the Administrative Manager of respondent Philippine EDS-Techno Services Inc. (PET). A rank-and-file employee, Fe Balonzo, submitted a letter complaining that Tirazona humiliated her regarding her medical condition upon her return from sick leave. PET management directed Tirazona to comment, which she did, denying the accusations and requesting an independent investigation. After review, PET Director Mamoru Ono sent a memorandum to Tirazona dated February 8, 2002. The memo stated management was satisfied she had no intent to humiliate but found her handling of the situation “less than ideal,” reminded her of the high expectations of her position, and considered the matter closed. It also expressed disapproval of her threat to file legal action.
Subsequently, Tirazona, through her counsel, sent separate demand letters to Director Ono and Balonzo, demanding P2 million in damages. The letter to Ono accused him of concluding she was guilty and violating her constitutional right to due process. In response, PET issued a Notice of Charge to Tirazona, stating it was considering her termination for serious misconduct and breach of trust, characterizing her demand letter as libelous for falsely accusing the company. After she submitted an explanation, PET terminated her employment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC’s ruling that petitioner’s dismissal from employment was legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal dismissal was grounded on loss of trust and confidence, a valid cause for termination under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code for managerial employees. The Court emphasized that as Administrative Manager and the highest-ranking Filipino officer acting as liaison between Japanese management and local staff, Tirazona occupied a position of utmost confidence.
The act constituting the breach was her sending of the demand letter to a company director. The Court found this was not a mere intemperate act but a willful and deliberate action that severed the trust inherent in her managerial role. By falsely accusing her employer of rendering judgment without due process and demanding a substantial sum, she exhibited disloyalty and engaged in conduct inimical to the employer’s interests. The employer’s loss of trust was reasonable given her fiduciary duties. The requirement of due process in termination was satisfied as she was given notice of the charge, an opportunity to explain, and notice of termination. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the appellate court’s findings.