G.R. No. 195614 . January 10, 2018.
Digital Telecommunications Phils., Inc./John Gokongwei, Jr., Petitioner, vs. Neilson M. Ayapana, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Neilson Ayapana was a Key Accounts Manager for petitioner Digital Telecommunications Phils., Inc. (Digitel). On September 6, 2006, he successfully sold two foreign exchange (FEX) lines to a client, collected ₱7,000.00, and issued official receipts. The following day, he learned from his superior that the FEX line was not available in the client’s area due to technical constraints. Respondent then retrieved the official receipts from the client and replaced them with an acknowledgment receipt. He did not remit the collected amount. On November 23, 2006, the client’s secretary requested a refund. Petitioner’s representative informed respondent of this request, but he refunded the money only on November 28, 2006.
Petitioner issued a Notice to Explain, charging respondent with breach of trust for offering a non-existent service, replacing official receipts, and failing to remit and promptly refund the money. Respondent explained he was initially unaware of the line’s unavailability, replaced the receipts to avoid issues with late remittance while exploring alternative service options with the client, and attempted to refund the money earlier but was unable to locate the client’s secretary. Petitioner found his explanations unsatisfactory and dismissed him for breach of trust.

ISSUE

Whether respondent was validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and National Labor Relations Commission rulings that the dismissal was illegal. For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissing an employee, the breach must be willful, founded on clearly established facts, and must involve a deliberate violation of the trust reposed by the employer. The employee must hold a position of trust, and the act must be performed with intent, malice, or bad faith.
The Court found respondent’s actions constituted simple negligence or imprudence, not willful breach. He ceased efforts to finalize the sale upon learning the service was unavailable, issued an acknowledgment receipt for the money in his possession, and made attempts to contact the client for a refund. His failure to immediately remit or refund was an isolated lapse, not a pattern of conduct evidencing deceit or wrongful intent. His long service and prior commendations were considered. Dismissal was too severe a penalty; a lesser sanction was appropriate. Consequently, petitioner was ordered to pay respondent separation pay and full backwages.