G.R. No. 222730. November 07, 2016.
BUENAFLOR CAR SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. CEZAR DURUMPILI DAVID, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Cezar David, Jr. was the Service Manager of petitioner Buenaflor Car Services, Inc., with authority to sign checks. An investigation revealed that 27 company checks, totaling over ₱1 million, had been altered with the insertion of “OR CASH” after the payee’s name, enabling their encashment. The company’s Accounting Assistant, Marilyn Del Rosario, executed an extrajudicial confession stating she inserted the words upon respondent’s instruction. The Purchasing Officer, Sonny De Guzman, was implicated for preparing spurious purchase orders, and a messenger, Jayson Caranto, for encashing checks. All four employees were preventively suspended.
Respondent denied the allegations, claiming no control over finance operations or authority to instruct Del Rosario. After investigation, petitioner terminated respondent and his co-workers for serious misconduct and willful breach of trust. Respondent filed an illegal dismissal complaint. Concurrently, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for Qualified Theft through Falsification. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC initially ruled respondent was illegally dismissed, finding insufficient proof of conspiracy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.

ISSUE

Was respondent illegally dismissed?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and NLRC, ruling the dismissal was valid. The legal logic rests on the principle that loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for dismissal under Article 297(b) of the Labor Code, requires proof of breach committed by an employee charged with fiduciary duties. Respondent, as Service Manager with check-signing authority, held a position of trust. The Court found substantial evidence of his participation in the fraudulent scheme.
The extrajudicial confession of Del Rosario, while insufficient alone to prove conspiracy against respondent under the rules of evidence, was corroborated by other circumstances. These included the established modus operandi requiring his approval of purchase orders and his signature on the altered checks. The sheer number of transactions and the involvement of subordinates under his supervision formed a credible picture of conspiracy. The employer’s investigation, which provided respondent an opportunity to explain, was deemed fair and compliant with procedural due process. Consequently, petitioner validly exercised its management prerogative to dismiss an employee for breach of trust.