GR 209983; (November, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209983. November 10, 2021
EVELINA E. BELARSO, PETITIONER, VS. QUALITY HOUSE, INC. AND/OR CARMELITA GO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Evelina E. Belarso was hired by respondent Quality House, Inc. (QHI) on November 14, 1976, and was promoted to Supervisor of the Raw Materials Warehouse on December 7, 1987. Her duties included receiving, keeping, and releasing raw materials. On December 10, 2010, during a routine outgoing inspection at the company gate, a belt buckle was found inside Belarso’s bag. She had no gate pass or authorization to bring the item out. Belarso denied knowledge of how the buckle got into her bag. An incident report was filed. QHI placed her under preventive suspension on December 13, 2010, and required her written explanation. In her December 15, 2010 explanation, she claimed she was framed, noting her bag was visible at her workstation. A conference was held on January 4, 2011. QHI found her explanation unsatisfactory and terminated her employment effective January 7, 2011, for stealing company property and loss of trust and confidence. Belarso had filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on January 5, 2011, alleging dismissal on December 13, 2010. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Belarso, finding her dismissal illegal and awarding backwages and separation pay. The NLRC reversed the LA, finding the dismissal was for a just cause (loss of trust and confidence) and dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC ruling.
ISSUE
Whether there existed a just cause to terminate the petitioner from her employment.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and Court of Appeals. The Court held that QHI had a valid cause to dismiss Belarso based on loss of trust and confidence. As a supervisor entrusted with the custody of company raw materials, she held a position of trust and confidence. The finding of the belt buckle in her bag during an inspection constituted an act of dishonesty, providing a basis for QHI to lose trust in her. Her defense of being framed was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, she violated company policy by bringing her bag to her workstation when lockers were provided. The penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the breach of trust and the nature of her infraction. The Court emphasized that in termination cases based on loss of trust and confidence, the employer must only show sufficient basis for the loss of confidence, which QHI satisfactorily established.