GR 178236; (June, 2008) (Digest)

G.R. No. 178236; June 27, 2008
OLIGARIO SALAS, petitioner, vs. ABOITIZ ONE, INC., and SABIN ABOITIZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Oligario Salas was employed by respondent Aboitiz One, Inc. as a material controller, a position of trust involving the monitoring and supply of operational Quickbox. On June 4, 2003, a stock-out of Large Quickbox occurred. Aboitiz issued a memorandum charging Salas with gross negligence for failing to monitor stock levels and report the critical situation. An administrative hearing was conducted. The company subsequently terminated Salas for loss of trust and confidence, citing the stock-out incident and an alleged act of tampering with a Bin Card by changing a date.
Salas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, finding no gross negligence. The NLRC ruled that Salas had made requisitions and follow-ups, and the duty to deliver shifted to the purchasing officer. It ordered separation pay but denied backwages. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, validating the dismissal based on loss of trust.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Salas was illegally dismissed. For a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the breach must be willful, intentional, and founded on clearly established facts. The Court found that the alleged gross negligence was not sufficiently proven. Salas had performed his duty by making timely requisitions; the failure in delivery was primarily the responsibility of the purchasing officer. The charge of tampering with the Bin Card was also unsubstantiated, as the company failed to present the original card or provide convincing evidence of the alteration.
The legal logic is that loss of trust must rest on substantial evidence of an intentional breach by an employee in a fiduciary capacity. Mere inefficiency or ordinary negligence is insufficient. Here, Aboitiz failed to discharge its burden of proving that Salas acted with deceit or willful disregard of his duties. His actions constituted simple, not gross, negligence. Consequently, the dismissal was without just cause. However, due to this contributory negligence, the award of backwages was reckoned only from the date of the NLRC decision, not from his actual dismissal. The Court ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of backwages from September 21, 2005.