ANITA LLOSA-TAN, petitioner, vs. SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, CARMELITO REGALADO, VANESSA SUATENGCO AND NESTOR FAMATIGAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Anita Llosa-Tan was a front office cashier at Silahis International Hotel. The hotel had a strict corporate policy, Policy No. 014, which prohibited cashiers from encashing personal checks of employees and officials to prevent losses from bouncing checks. On August 22, 1982, Fernando Gayondato, the general cashier of a sister company and a nephew of the hotel’s Executive Vice President, requested petitioner to encash two US dollar checks. Petitioner initially cited the policy, but Gayondato insisted he had prior approval from the Executive Vice President. Relying on his assurances and his familial connection to management, petitioner encashed the checks, which subsequently bounced.
Following this incident, management placed petitioner under preventive suspension and required her to explain her actions. In her defense, she cited Gayondato’s representations and a prior instance where she was reprimanded for being too inflexible in applying the same policy. Despite her explanation, she was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ordered her reinstatement without backwages, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision and dismissed her complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of petitioner Anita Llosa-Tan was valid, constituting a dismissal for just cause based on loss of trust and confidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. The legal logic centers on the requirement that loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for dismissal, must be based on willful breach of trust by the employee and must rest on substantial evidence, not mere arbitrariness. The Court found that petitioner did not act with willful or malicious intent to violate company policy. Her actions were taken in good faith, influenced by Gayondato’s high-ranking position, his familial ties to top management, and his specific assurances of prior approval. Furthermore, management’s own inconsistent application of the policy-having previously reprimanded her for being too strict-contributed to her decision to exercise discretion. The employer’s prerogative to dismiss is not absolute and must be exercised without abuse of discretion. The constitutional guarantee of security of tenure requires that dismissal be for a just and authorized cause, which was absent here. Consequently, the NLRC decision was set aside. Petitioner was ordered reinstated without loss of seniority rights and awarded full backwages for three years from the date of her illegal termination.
