G.R. No. 208535. October 19, 2016.
LEO’S RESTAURANT AND BAR CAFÉ MOUNTAIN SUITE BUSINESS APARTELLE, LEO Y. LUA AND AMELIA LUA, PETITIONERS, VS. LAARNE C. BENSING, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Laarne C. Bensing was employed by Kimwa Construction & Development Corporation and later appointed as Administrative Officer/HR Head for petitioners Leo’s Restaurant and Bar Café and Mountain Suite Business Apartelle. On December 30, 2005, she was issued a memorandum by Manager Leo Y. Lua requiring her to explain her signing of a supply contract with Pepsi Products Philippines, Inc. without his authority and to account for alleged missing soft drink cases. Bensing explained she had verbal authorization from Lua, given in the presence of Pepsi’s sales manager, and denied receiving any personal benefits. Pepsi subsequently certified the correct deliveries and clarified no cash benefits were given to any staff.
Despite this, petitioners issued additional memoranda accusing Bensing of dishonesty and failure to account for products. On January 12, 2006, she was terminated on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Bensing filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint, but the NLRC initially reversed this finding, declaring the dismissal illegal. Upon reconsideration, the NLRC reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals then set aside the NLRC’s later resolutions and reinstated its initial ruling of illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that respondent Bensing was illegally dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. For a dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence to be valid, the breach of trust must be willful, deliberate, and founded on substantial evidence. The employer must prove the employee holds a position of trust and confidence and committed an act justifying such loss. Here, petitioners failed to substantiate their claim. Bensing, as Administrative Officer/HR Head, occupied a position of trust. However, her act of signing the Pepsi contract was supported by her claim of verbal authority from Lua, a claim petitioners did not convincingly refute. The subsequent certification from Pepsi corroborated her defense regarding the deliveries and absence of personal gain.
The charges of dishonesty and failure to account were unsubstantiated. Loss of trust and confidence cannot be based on mere suspicion or unproven allegations. Petitioners did not present clear evidence of a willful breach or fraudulent intent on Bensing’s part. Therefore, the dismissal lacked just cause. The legal logic affirms that termination for loss of confidence requires concrete proof of a deliberate violation by the employee, which was absent in this case, rendering the dismissal illegal and entitling Bensing to reinstatement and backwages.