G.R. No. 198066 , June 7, 2017
YOLANDO T. BRAVO, Petitioner, vs. URIOS COLLEGE (NOW FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY) and/or FR. JOHN CHRISTIAN U. YOUNG, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Yolando T. Bravo was employed by Urios College as a part-time teacher and was designated as Comptroller. A committee was formed to formulate a new ranking system for non-academic employees. Bravo, as Comptroller, recommended that his position be classified as middle management, which the committee allegedly accepted. His employee ranking slip was subsequently changed to reflect a middle manager classification. A salary adjustment schedule based on this new system was implemented.
Subsequently, a new committee reviewing the system found discrepancies, alleging that the Comptroller’s Office solely prepared and implemented the salary adjustment schedule without proper approval. Bravo was charged with serious misconduct and willful breach of trust for allegedly misclassifying positions and miscomputing salaries, leading to overpayment in his own salary and underpayment for others. He was dismissed from service. The Executive Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal, a decision reinstated by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner Yolando T. Bravo on the ground of loss of trust and confidence was valid.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that Bravo’s dismissal was illegal. The Court emphasized the distinction in the application of loss of trust and confidence between managerial and rank-and-file employees. For rank-and-file employees, the employer must prove the employee’s actual involvement in the misconduct that breached the trust. For managerial employees, mere existence of a basis for believing that the employee breached that trust is sufficient.
The Court found that Bravo was a rank-and-file employee, not a managerial one. His position as Comptroller, while requiring a degree of confidence, did not involve the formulation of managerial policies or the exercise of independent judgment over the corporation’s management. His duties were primarily clerical and routinary, such as payroll preparation and verification of vouchers. Consequently, the higher standard of proof applied. Respondents failed to present clear and convincing evidence of Bravo’s deliberate participation in fraud or willful breach of trust. The alleged unauthorized implementation of the salary schedule was not substantiated with proof of his malicious intent. The act of recommending a classification, even if erroneous, without proof of deceit, does not constitute willful breach warranting dismissal. Therefore, Bravo was illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and backwages.