NEW CITY COMMERCIAL CENTER, RUEL B. GUSTILLO, AND FREDERICK AMIEL LASMARIAS, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 8TH DIVISION, AND ALICIA O. CASTILLO, RESPONDE…
FRANCISCO, J.:
The Facts of the Case
Herein private respondent Alicia Castillo is a regular employee of herein petitioner New City Commercial Center (NCCC) since February 19, 1988 until her termination on January 12, 2010. At the time of her termination, she was a Tenant Relations Officer with a monthly basic salary of P8,048.00 and a monthly allowance of P4,650.20 or a total gross of P12,698.20. As a Tenant Relations Officer, her duties were: a) to attend to prospective tenants/lessees who would like to occupy and lease commercial spaces at NCCC Malls or Shopping Centers in various parts of Davao City; b) to evaluate, process and recommend for approval applications of prospective tenants/lessees; c) to assist in the preparation of corresponding lease contracts; and d) to maintain good business relations with existing tenants/lessees.[4]
On December 9, 2009, herein petitioner Frederick Amiel Lasmarias, Corporate Leasing Officer, received a letter-inquiry from a certain Cherry Mae Bersabal, Operations Manager of Eden’s Lechon, Atbp. (lessee at NCCC Mall) requesting for clarification on the rules in leasing of space with NCCC as she wondered why Castillo referred her to Pamela Abear when she signified her intention to lease a bigger space at NCCC Magsaysay Branch as well as in Calinan and Panacan Branch.[5]
In her handwritten letter dated December 15, 2009, Abear stated that there was no discussion between her, Castillo and Bersabal pertaining to NCCC Panacan and Calinan Branches. Although Abear admitted that Bersabal is her client at NCCC Magsaysay Branch, she however stressed that Castillo had nothing to do with her transaction. Nor did Castillo receive any commission from her. She however revealed that Castillo owed her money.[6]
On the basis of the gathered information and revelations, the NCCC charged Castillo with violations of existing company policy on leasing procedures and was required to explain in writing why no administrative sanction should be meted against her. On December 16, 2009, Castillo submitted her explanation and denied the charges against her.[7]
Thereafter, the Investigation Committee recommended Castillo’s dismissal from service.[8] Subsequently, in a memorandum dated January 11, 2010, Castillo was formally notified of her dismissal from service effective January 12, 2010 on the following grounds:
a) Your endorsement of Ms. Bersabal to the service of a third party when it was your job to cater prospect tenants’ leasing concerns is a form of dishonesty, fraud or deceit against the company (Incidents against Xellie No. 22) as well as gross abuse of status, position or discretion of authority (Incidents Against Humby No. II) as this was a clear breach of established procedures.
b) Your loan of P6,000.00 from a third party who happens to be a business partner, with no agreed payment terms knowing that this may influence you (sic) decision making and without disclosure of the loan constitute (sic) an act violating the Conflict of Interest Policy (Incidents Against Xellie #23).[9]
On April 19, 2010, Castillo filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal against NCCC, Tek Sim Go (Group President), Ruel Gustillo (Director, LTS Malls & Entertainment), and Frederick Amiel Lasmarias before the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI, Davao City, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-XI-04-00451-10.[10]
According to Castillo, she was suspended and eventually terminated without any valid ground or just cause. She argued that borrowing money from third person does not constitute valid cause for her termination as such is her personal obligation with the third person. She claimed that in her twenty-two (22) years in service, she has not committed any form of dishonesty, fraud or deceit against her employer much less committed any infraction of the law. She also claimed that her right to security of tenure and due process were violated for want of an independent formal investigation. She prayed for reinstatement and payment of backwages and if reinstatement is no longer feasible, payment of separation pay.
On the other hand, NCCC et al. maintained that Castillo’s termination from service was for just cause and that the requirements of due process were duly complied with in effecting her dismissal. They asserted that a formal administrative hearing was conducted with the presence and participation of Castillo. Moreover, she was given notice to explain her side and thereafter, a notice of her dismissal. They also maintained that there is sufficient evidence for terminating the employment of Castillo on the basis of loss of trust and confidence. They contended that loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and greater fidelity to duty is expected. In the present case, they claimed that Castillo is a managerial employee since she was entrusted with confidence on delicate matters such as selection of mall tenants/lessees and maintaining good relations with them for the protection of the best interest of her employer. They added that Castillo’s duty insofar as tenants-applicants are concerned is to see to it that they are politely attended to and their application are immediately and properly processed. They argued that in the present case, Castillo needlessly referred the prospective tenants-applicants to an outsider to do the processing service, which was outrightly wrong and unauthorized. They posited that tenant Cherry Mae Bersabal admitted that Pamela Abear has packaged the processing work for a fee. They further alleged that Castillo’s credit standing with Abear was enhanced since her referrals gave the latter a “good business.”[11]
On November 24, 2010, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision,[12] the fallo of which reads-
WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant Castillo’s penalty of dismissal as too harsh a penalty and thus unreasonable and unwarranted. The complainant’s dismissal therefore is illegal.
Consequently, respondents are hereby ordered and directed to IMMEDIATELY REINSTATE complainant ALICIA O. CASTILLO to her former position without loss of seniority rights and her other benefits, and to pay her, her BACKWAGES computed from the time she was illegally dismissed on 12 January 2010 up to her actual reinstatement tentatively computed in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Seven and 67/100 Pesos (P129,267.67) as shown in the separate computation sheet forming an integral part of the records of this case.
In addition, complainant is herein awarded attorney’s fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award in the amount of Twelve [T]housand Nine Hundred Twenty Six and 76/100 Pesos (P12,926.76).
All other claims not hereto awarded are considered denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[13]
On appeal, respondent Commission affirmed in toto the November 24, 2010 Labor Arbiter Decision in its March 30, 2011 assailed Resolution.[14]
In this recourse, petitioners NCCC, Ruel Gustillo and Frederick Amiel Lasmarias raise the following grounds:
I
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE ACTUATIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE WILLFUL BREACH OF TRUST.
II
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S BREACH OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.
II
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AND BACKWAGES.[15]
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
To constitute a valid dismissal from employment under Article 282 of the Labor Code, 16 two requisites must concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided for in the said article; and (b) the employee must be afforded procedural due process.[17]
Records show that the NCCC dismissed private respondent Castillo on the ground of dishonesty and loss of trust and confidence due to the following alleged infractions: (1) endorsement of Cherry Mae Bersabal to the services of a third party as this was a clear breach of established procedure; and (2) borrowing money from a third party who happens to be a business partner, an act violating the Conflict of Interest Policy.[18]
On the first ground, it appears that apart from the unsworn letter-inquiry of Cherry Mae Bersabal, no other evidence was presented to show Castillo’s alleged endorsement to the services of a third party. Even if this Court were to consider such unsworn imputation, still, it rings hollow because the petitioners did not present the alleged established procedural rule particularly prohibiting, expressly or impliedly, the act of endorsing tenants-applicants to the services of a third party.
On the second ground, the petitioners did not explain how conflict of interest would arise from private respondent’s personal transaction, that is, borrowing money from a third person. Neither have petitioners shown proof that private respondent’s work was indeed prejudiced by her personal loan. Further, the allegation that the third person is her business partner remains unsubstantiated.
Loss of trust and confidence, as a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Elsewise stated, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer’s whims or caprices or suspicions; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. A condemnation of dishonesty and disloyalty cannot arise from suspicion spawned by speculative inferences.[19]
In this case, the Court does not find the evidence sufficient to hold that private respondent’s actuations amounted to a willful breach of trust. Petitioners’ imputations are, at most, specious and based on speculations. In the words of the respondent Commission-
As there is no substantive evidence extant on record, the alleged facts upon which loss of trust and confidence is founded is made to rest as mere unsubstantiated allegations. Hence, complainant’s dismissal is rendered unjustified and therefore illegal. Consequently, the complainant’s purported violation of a company policy signifies nothing more than a blank statement and naked conclusion that do not inherit a valid justification for her dismissal from service.
Well-entrenched is the rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the ‘onus probandi’ is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for cause and due process. Regrettably, respondents (NCCC et al.) failed to discharge this burden in the case at bar.[20]
Hence, this Court discerns no error, let alone grave abuse of discretion, on the part of respondent Commission in affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter that the private complainant was illegally dismissed. This Court need not discuss further the matter of due process.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated March 30, 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission – Eighth Division, Cagayan de Oro City, in NLRC NO. MAC-01-011844-20119 is AFFIRMED.
Let this case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of private respondent’s monetary benefits in accordance with Article 279[21] of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Borja, J., Ch., and Badelles, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 6-18.
[2] Id., pp. 78-83.
[3] Id., pp. 22-33.
[4] Id., pp. 23-24.
[5] Id., p. 24.
[6] Id., p. 25.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Id., p. 82.
[10] Id., p. 22.
[11] Id., pp. 23-26.
[12] Note 3, supra.
[13] Rollo, p. 33.
[14] Note 2, supra.
[15] Rollo, p. 11.
[16] Article 282. Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willfull disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly- authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly-authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
[17] Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158232, March 31, 2005 citing Permex, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 323 SCRA 121 (2000).
[18] Rollo, p. 82.
[19] Garcia v. NLRC, G.R. 172854, April 16, 2009.
[20] Rollo, p. 83.
[21] ART. 279. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.