G.R. No. 198699 ; October 9, 2013
REXIE A. HORMILLOSA, Petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., represented by its Iloilo Plant Human Resource Head, ROBERTO RICHARD H. DOLAR, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rexie A. Hormillosa was employed as a route salesman by respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (CBPI). His duties included selling products, issuing sales invoices, and receiving payments. He was governed by the company’s Employee Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations. In early 1999, a verification audit by his supervisor, Raul Tiosayco, revealed several irregularities. These included fictitious sales transactions, falsification of company invoices and records, and misuse of funds. Specifically, several customers denied their indebtedness reflected in Container on Loan (COL) or Temporary Credit Sale (TCS) invoices, with one alleging forgery of her signature. Hormillosa was placed under investigation and given several opportunities to explain but repeatedly sought postponements. He eventually claimed the investigation was moot due to a separate unfair labor practice case he had filed. CBPI proceeded with the investigation, found the charges substantiated, and terminated Hormillosa for loss of trust and confidence, fraud, and violation of company rules.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the NLRC and upheld the validity of Hormillosa’s dismissal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, ruling that Hormillosa’s dismissal was valid. The legal logic rests on the established doctrine that loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee in a position of trust, provided the breach is willful and founded on clearly established facts. As a route salesman handling cash, invoices, and credit transactions, Hormillosa occupied a fiduciary position. The company presented substantial evidence, including affidavits from customers denying the transactions and pointing to forgery, which constituted clear and convincing proof of fraud and willful breach of trust. His failure to substantively refute these allegations during the investigation further strengthened the case against him. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the CA, when supported by evidence, are generally conclusive. Since the acts constituted serious misconduct and willful breach of trust under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the dismissal was for a just cause. Consequently, Hormillosa was not entitled to separation pay or any other monetary award. The employer complied with both substantive and procedural due process by conducting a thorough investigation and affording him opportunities to be heard.