G.R. No. 170014; July 3, 2009
RENITA DEL ROSARIO, TERESITA EISMA, ROSARIO TEAÑO, ELSIE JAVINEZ, EDERLINDA YCONG and MERCEDES MASANGKAY, Petitioners, vs. MAKATI CINEMA SQUARE CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners were regular employees of respondent corporation, working as ticket sellers and portresses, and were union officers. Respondent requested an NBI investigation into an alleged systematic ticket recycling fraud at its cinemas, leading to the arrest of two employees in March 1995. The scheme involved portresses not mutilating used tickets and returning them to ticket sellers for resale, with the proceeds personally appropriated. While the union was renegotiating the CBA’s economic provisions in mid-1995, respondent filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft against petitioners on July 7, 1995, supported by a detailed affidavit from its ticket auditor, Anthony Gimena, specifying dates, amounts, and petitioners’ involvement. On July 10, 1995, respondent served a notice of cessation of theater operations, placed petitioners under preventive suspension, and conducted administrative hearings. Petitioners were eventually dismissed on August 10, 1995. They were later acquitted in the criminal case in 2002 due to the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners were validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the dismissal. The petition was procedurally infirm as it was filed under Rule 45 but alleged grave abuse of discretion, a question of jurisdiction improper for such a review. Nevertheless, the Court ruled on the merits. For dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the breach of trust must be willful, founded on clearly established facts, and the employee must hold a position of confidence. Petitioners, as ticket sellers and portresses, occupied fiduciary positions where honesty was indispensable. The employer presented substantial evidence, including the sworn statement of ticket auditor Anthony Gimena, which provided a detailed, firsthand account of the illicit scheme, naming petitioners, specifying dates, times, and amounts of money handed over as shares. This affidavit constituted more than a mere suspicion and provided a reasonable ground to believe petitioners participated in the fraud. The requirement in dismissal cases is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as in criminal cases, but merely substantial evidence. The acquittal in the criminal case did not bar the dismissal, as the standards of proof differ; the labor tribunal’s finding of validity was based on the preponderance of evidence in the administrative proceeding. Thus, respondent lawfully terminated petitioners for breach of trust.