G.R. No. 200658 , June 23, 2021
SALVACION A. LAMADRID, PETITIONER, VS. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED AND VIVIAN LO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Salvacion A. Lamadrid was hired in 1990 by respondent Cathay Pacific Airways Limited as a cabin crew, later becoming a Senior Purser. Her duties included supporting the In-flight Service Manager, ensuring service and safety procedures were followed, and being responsible for the performance of crew in her assigned area. On May 19, 2007, during flight CX 139, Lamadrid was reported to have been caught in possession of a 1.5-liter Evian water bottle and a pile of magazines after alighting from the aircraft in Sydney. These items were confiscated. Cathay requested Lamadrid to explain the incident, alleging that removing company property without authorization constituted serious misconduct. Lamadrid denied the allegations, claiming the magazine was not company property and that another crew member admitted to taking the other items. After an exchange of letters, Cathay terminated Lamadrid’s services on July 10, 2007, for serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. Lamadrid filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter but modified the decision by ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages, deducting separation benefits she had received. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, finding the dismissal valid and dismissing the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding petitioner Salvacion A. Lamadrid’s dismissal from employment valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code and Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), as the claims arose from an employer-employee relationship involving an Overseas Filipino Worker. On the merits, the Court found that Lamadrid’s act of taking company property without authorization constituted serious misconduct. As a Senior Purser, her position was one of trust and confidence, involving supervisory responsibilities over other cabin crew and ensuring compliance with safety and service procedures. Her dishonesty breached this trust. The Court ruled that the penalty of dismissal was commensurate to the offense, as loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for termination of employees holding positions of trust. The employer’s decision to dismiss was based on substantial evidence of the pilferage incident and her subsequent untruthful explanations. The Court emphasized that the value of the stolen items is immaterial, and length of service does not exonerate an employee from the consequences of dishonest acts that erode the employer’s trust.