GR 220526 27; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 220526 -27, July 29, 2019
PNOC DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PDMC), Petitioner vs. GLORIA V. GOMEZ, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Gloria V. Gomez, a lawyer, was appointed Administrator and Legal Counsel of PNOC Development and Management Corporation (PDMC) in 1996, with her term later extended until 2004 by the company president. A new Board of Directors later questioned the validity of this extension, deeming it ultra vires, as the position was functionally equivalent to a vice-president requiring Board approval. While seeking an opinion from the Government Corporate Counsel, PDMC withheld Gomez’s salary. Gomez filed a labor complaint for non-payment of wages, later amended to include illegal dismissal after the Board terminated her services retroactive to her original retirement date.
The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court, in a prior final ruling ( G.R. No. 174044 ), held that Gomez was a regular managerial employee, placing the dispute under labor tribunal jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC subsequently found Gomez to have been illegally dismissed, awarding her backwages and other monetary claims. PDMC elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC ruling, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of respondent Gloria V. Gomez on the ground of loss of trust and confidence was valid.
RULING
No, the dismissal was invalid. For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, it must be based on a willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts. The employer must present substantial evidence of an act justifying the loss of confidence. PDMC failed to meet this burden.
The Court found that PDMC’s basis for dismissal was the Board’s mere belief that Gomez’s extended appointment was invalid, not any act of dishonesty or willful breach by Gomez herself. Her continued service was under a claim of right, based on an appointment letter she believed to be valid. The dispute was essentially over the interpretation of corporate authority to appoint, not an act of disloyalty. Loss of trust and confidence cannot arise from a mere difference of opinion on legal interpretation where no underlying malfeasance is proven. Since no willful breach was established, the dismissal was illegal. The Court affirmed the awards for backwages, unpaid salaries, and other benefits, subject to legal interest.