G.R. No. 200571 , February 19, 2018
JOSEPHINE A. CASCO, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SIXTH DIVISION, CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER and/or THELMA N. CLEMENTE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Josephine Casco was the Nurse Supervisor of the Operating Room at Capitol Medical Center, a position of responsibility involving the supervision of personnel and accountability for equipment. In 2008, a calibration check revealed the loss of several valuable pieces of hospital equipment, including monitors and vaporizers, from the operating room complex under her supervision. The hospital charged her with gross negligence, citing her failure to implement adequate control measures to secure the equipment. In her defense, Casco argued she had previously suggested installing more surveillance cameras, that the theft was beyond her control due to multiple access points, and that she had taken steps like contacting colleagues about the missing items.
Casco was dismissed. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal, finding the negligence was not gross and habitual. The NLRC reversed, holding her responsible for gross negligence and loss of trust and confidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Casco elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s decision that Casco was validly dismissed on the grounds of gross negligence and loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision declaring the dismissal illegal. The Court’s legal logic centered on the employer’s failure to prove by substantial evidence that Casco’s actions constituted gross negligence warranting dismissal. Gross negligence implies a want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences.
The Court found that Casco’s actions did not meet this high standard. Her job summary made her accountable for losses, but accountability is not synonymous with automatic liability for dismissal upon a loss. The evidence showed she had taken some remedial steps, and the loss occurred in an area with multiple access points. The Court emphasized that for loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground, the breach must be willful, meaning it was done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse. The employer failed to prove any deliberate or willful act by Casco that facilitated the loss. Her alleged negligence was, at best, simple negligence, which does not justify the extreme penalty of dismissal. The loss of trust must be founded on established facts, not on the employer’s whims or suspicions. Consequently, her dismissal was without just or authorized cause and was therefore illegal.