G.R. No. 245258 , February 05, 2020
Metro Psychiatry, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Bernie J. Llorente, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Bernie Llorente was hired in November 2007 as a nursing attendant by petitioner Metro Psychiatry, Inc. (MPI). On June 22, 2016, MPI issued a Memorandum requiring Llorente to explain his refusal to perform assigned tasks. On July 9, 2016, MPI issued another Memorandum, placing him under preventive suspension and requiring him to explain two charges: (1) falsely reporting to a patient’s (David Warren Tan) parents that the patient was being maltreated, and (2) failing to comply with instructions to clean the facility and attend meetings. MPI alleged that on March 17, 2016, Tan’s mother received a text message about her son’s alleged abuse and, upon calling the informant via speaker phone, Nurses Garry Dumalanta and John Paul Manawat recognized Llorente’s voice. CCTV footage from that date showed Llorente flipping through patient charts, copying information, and placing it in his pocket. In his explanation, Llorente denied contacting Tan’s mother and claimed he was copying vital signs for endorsement. On September 5, 2016, Llorente received a Notice of Termination for loss of trust and confidence and willful disobedience. He filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, alleging harassment due to a previous labor case. MPI countered that Llorente was terminated for maliciously relaying false information and cited past infractions. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal valid. The NLRC affirmed the validity of the dismissal but awarded monetary claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence insufficient for termination and modifying the award to include back wages, separation pay, attorney’s fees, and interest.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Llorente was illegally dismissed from employment, thereby reversing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the Decision of the NLRC. The Court held that the CA overlooked that the quantum of proof required in dismissal cases is substantial evidence. The evidence—CCTV footage showing Llorente suspiciously copying and pocketing patient information on the same day Tan’s mother was contacted, coupled with the sworn statements of two nurses who recognized his voice as the informant—constituted substantial evidence to prove the charge of serious misconduct (falsely reporting abuse) justifying dismissal for loss of trust and confidence. While the act of disobedience alone might not warrant termination, when combined with the serious misconduct, dismissal was justified. The Court found the CA’s justification for Llorente’s act (that as a nursing attendant he had access to records) missed the crucial distinction between having access and secretly copying and pocketing information. The past infractions, while not cited in the termination notice, indicated a pattern of unbecoming behavior.