G.R. No. 206629 SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
NARCISO T. MATIS, PETITIONER, VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Narciso T. Matis, along with other crew members, was employed by respondent Manila Electric Company (Meralco) in various capacities, with Matis serving as a foreman. On May 25, 2006, while the crew was working on a pole replacement in Valenzuela City, a non-employee named Norberto Llanes was observed at the worksite. Video surveillance by a Meralco task force showed Llanes freely boarding the company trucks, rummaging for tools and materials, and placing them in his backpack over a period exceeding two hours. The crew, including Matis, was seen interacting casually with Llanes, handing him tools and sharing water, but no one intervened to stop the apparent pilferage.
Following an investigation, Meralco dismissed Matis and his co-workers on grounds of serious misconduct, fraud or willful breach of trust, and gross negligence. The Labor Arbiter initially found the penalty of dismissal too harsh, ordering reinstatement without backwages. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this, ruling the dismissal valid due to gross negligence and loss of trust and confidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision, prompting Matis to elevate 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 ruling that petitioner Narciso T. Matis was validly dismissed from employment on the grounds of gross negligence and loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision. The Court held that Matis’s dismissal was for a just cause, specifically gross negligence amounting to loss of trust and confidence. As a foreman, Matis held a supervisory position of responsibility, entrusted with the care and custody of Meralco’s tools, equipment, and materials. The video evidence clearly established that he witnessed Llanes’s suspicious activities over an extended period but took no action to prevent the theft. His failure to perform this basic duty constituted not mere simple neglect, but gross negligence, defined as the want of even slight care or a conscious indifference to the consequences of one’s actions.
The Court emphasized that loss of trust and confidence, as a ground for dismissal, applies to employees occupying positions of trust, such as a foreman. Matis’s gross negligence in safeguarding company property, as captured on video, amply demonstrated a breach of the trust reposed in him by his employer. The Court found that Meralco had substantial evidence to prove the charge and that due process was observed, as Matis was given the opportunity to explain his side during the company investigation. Consequently, his dismissal was legally justified.