GR 85446; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85446 ; May 27, 1991
OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. and VICENTE PANGANIBAN, JR., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ZALDY BAUTISTA, respondents.
FACTS
Zaldy Bautista, an Expediter and Canvasser for Ocean Terminal Services, Inc., was tasked on March 21, 1986, with an urgent repair of a blow/cutting torch. He received P270.00 from the company for this purpose. However, the torch remained unrepaired and unclaimed at the shop. When confronted, Bautista initially could not explain but later paid the shop, admitting he had used part of the money for a personal financial problem, causing a four-day delay in the repair urgently needed by another department.
The company, after investigation, dismissed Bautista on April 19, 1988, for loss of trust and confidence due to malversation. Bautista filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, while acknowledging the wrongdoing, ruled the penalty of dismissal was too harsh given the nominal amount, his six years of service, and it being a first offense. They ordered his reinstatement with one year of back wages, suggesting a two-month suspension was sufficient.
ISSUE
Was the dismissal of Zaldy Bautista on the ground of loss of trust and confidence valid?
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and upheld the dismissal. The legal logic centers on the nature of loss of trust and confidence as a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Court emphasized that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; it is sufficient that the employer has reasonable grounds to believe the employee committed an act justifying the loss of trust.
Bautista’s position as an Expediter handling company funds was one of trust. His admitted act of converting company money for personal use, even temporarily and for a small amount, constituted a breach of that trust. The urgency of the repair he was tasked with underscored the seriousness of his neglect and dishonesty. The Court rejected the NLRC’s view that the penalty was too harsh, citing precedents like Piedad v. Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., where dismissal was sustained for similar cash shortages regardless of immediate restitution or length of service.
The Court found it unreasonable to compel an employer to retain an employee whose dishonesty was proven and whose character was deemed suspect, even by the Solicitor General’s suggestion for reassignment to a “non-sensitive” position. The right to dismiss on grounds of loss of confidence is a management prerogative essential for self-protection when an employee’s continuance is inimical to the employer’s interest. Therefore, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering reinstatement.