G.R. No. 58958. July 16, 1984
GRAND MOTOR PARTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE MINISTER OF LABOR, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF LABOR, REGION VI, AND NARCISO BELICENA, JR., RESPONDENTS.
GUERRERO, J.:
Labor which affirmed the decision of the Regional Director of Region VI
dated November 27, 1980 directing the reinstatement of the private
respondent Narciso Belicena, Jr. as Branch Manager of the petitioner,
Grand Motor Parts Corporation, Iloilo Branch, Iloilo City, “with
backwages from the time he was dismissed (August 31, 1980, the date
complainant received the letter of termination) up to the time he is
actually reinstated without loss of seniority right, benefits, and other
privileges under existing laws, decrees, and agreement, verbal or
written, entered into by the parties at the time of hiring.”
Since the above decision of the Regional Director was rendered purely on
the basis of the position papers of the petitioner corporation and the
private respondent, without hearing nor cross-examining the parties, and
petitioner claims grave abuse of discretion committed in public
respondents’ order for the reinstatement of the Branch Manager, We
gather the antecedent facts from the respective position papers of the
parties.
In the complaint filed by Narciso Belicena, Jr. against the Grand Motor
Parts Corporation and Fred Cisneros as Personnel Manager dated September
4, 1980 filed with the Regional Office No. VI, Labor Relations
Division, Ministry of Labor and Employment, the complainant charged
respondents the following causes of action:
“1. Illegal dismissal w/o justifiable reason or report from the Ministry of Labor & Employment-August 25, 1980;
2. Reinstatement with backwages – P3,000.00 – monthly salary;
3. Transportation allowance – as gasoline expenses – Total P300.00 at P100.00 per week since Aug. 18 to Sept. 5/80;
4. Non-payment of 13th month bonus – Total P1,250.00 for 5 mos. at P3,000.00 monthly salary;
5. 1% share in net profit at the end of the year – P25,000.00.”
According to the position paper submitted by Branch Manager Belicena,
Jr., the “facts concerning (his) hiring and subsequent dismissal by the
Grand Motor Parts Corp.” are:
“Just before Christmas of 1979, I met Mr. Alfredo Cisneros, who
was introduced as the Acting Branch Manager of Grand Motor Parts
Corporation, Iloilo Office. In the course of our conversation, he told
me they need a man, preferable a CPA, to manage the Iloilo Office since
he is really based in Cebu. When I told him that I am a CPA, he offered
me the job. I said I will seriously consider his offer. Then, he
interviewed me. In all honesty, I told who I am.1. That I am presently connected with Warner, Barnes & Co., Inc. – Iloilo Office.
2. That I joined Warner, Barnes in 1966 and rose from the rank of
bookkeeper to Chief Accountant and to Finance Officer, the present
position I am holding in a span of 14 years.3. That I graduated from the University of the East in 1962 and had been working since I started college work
4. That my present salary is P2,408.00 per month
5. That my fringe benefits are as follows:
a. Provided with company car
b. No limit in gasoline
c. No limit in repair expenses
d. Free medical, dental, hospitalization, medicines without limitation
e. That I am a practicing CPA with monthly retainer’s fees of P350.00
f. That I hold unofficially the position of No. 2 man in the Branch and such is a signatory on all checks
g. That I have never been involved in any acts of dishonesty
or disloyalty to the company in my fourteen (14) years of workh. That they are free to make inquiries with Warner, Barnes as to the validity of the information I am giving him.
In March 1980, Mr. Cisneros followed up his offer and this time in a more official manner with the following benefits.
1. That I will be hired on a regular basis, not passing thru the
probationary period since I more than qualify for the position2. My month basic pay is P3,000.00.
3. My entertainment allowance is P1,000.00
4. Free car with unlimited gasoline and repair expenses
5. That I will also have free hospitalization, dental, medical and medicines without limit
6. That aside from the usual 13th month pay, I will also get a 1%
share on the net profit of the Branch at the end of a 12-month
operation. The Branch is averaging P600,000.00 as its net profit for a
12-month operation or at least P5,000.00 a month.7. That I can only be terminated if in case I become grossly incompetent and dishonest
With all these agreements and benefits, I accepted the offer and forsook my 14 years service with Warner, Barnes & Co., Inc.
x x x x x x x x x
In April 1, 1980, I started working as Branch Manager of Grand Motor
Parts Corporation and also of Grand Tire Recapping Plant, Iloilo
Offices.
In April 22, 1980, I had a serious misunderstanding with Mr. Benito Uy.
I was blamed for a misdemeanor by a probationary salesman and for which
I was not aware nor told about it. Since, I believed that I judged
rashly, I called Mr. Cisneros in Cebu and told him that I am leaving the
company since I have now misgiving concerning management’s maturity and
intelligence in handling problems. But, he asked me to stay on since
he will settle things with Mr. Uy in Bacolod. Since, I do not want to
put Mr. Cisneros, the company in a bad light I stayed but intent on
resigning upon Mr. Cisnero’s arrival from Bacolod. Mr. Cisneros arrived
on April 26, 1980 and told me that Mr. Uy understood the whole
situation and I must understand the characters of my superiors. He
prevailed me to stay on. He fired the erring salesman because the
company would rather fire the salesman than lose me since it is hard to
look for professional men. To show his sincerity, he followed me home.
There, he told my wife that she should not feel insecure since I am now
working with a very stable and fraternal company. That, again, I will
never be terminated unless I am highly incompetent and dishonest. So, I
stayed on.
x x x x x x x x x
On August 18, 1980, after Mr. N. Garcia and company left Iloilo, I was
relieved of some of my rights and privileges as Branch Manager of GMPC
and GTRC, Iloilo Offices. Mr. A. Cisneros executed these relief.
On August 31, 1980 came the letter of termination signed by Mr. Alfredo
Cisneros, now the Personnel Manager. It was not signed by Mr. N.
Garcia, the President.”
x x x x x x x x x
On the other hand, the position paper submitted by the Grand Motor Parts Corporation through counsel, states the following:
“There were several persons who applied as manager, including the
complainant herein. Mr. Cisneros chose the complainant to take over the
Iloilo Branch, subject to certain terms and conditions as herein
discussed.
The respondent is aware that complainant in his fourteen years of
service with Warner Barnes and being a Certified Public Accountant,
failed to get a promotion to the rank of Manager.
As a measure of protection, considering the responsibility and the
amount of the investÂments attached to the job, the respondent gave the
complainant a 4 to 6 months probation or observation period. This
period of time was expressly agreed upon by the complainant and Fred
Cisneros to determine the standard of complainant’s managerial ability,
competency and excellence. It was spelled out to the complainant that
he may not qualify for the job based on his performance during the 4 to 6
months period running the risk of not being able to qualify for the job
and lose employment in the process.
Mr. Cisneros clarified to the complainant that if within the observation
or probation period he failed to qualify as branch manager he will be
refused final appointment and the respondent will be forced to terminate
him. It was precisely for this reason that complainant could not
produce any written appointment because the permanency of his position
is still to be determined by the respondent corporation after the lapse
of the six months probationary period.
As a matter of fact, complainant as of April 1980 has not yet resigned
from Warner Barnes hoping that in the event of his disqualification from
the respondent, he will have an opportunity to return to his job at
Warner Barnes, as Accountant or Finance Officer.
Within the said probation period, Fred Cisneros was the one in charge in
the superÂvision of the complainant’s performance. Mr. Cisneros has to
stay in Iloilo to give management advice to the complainant, insuring
that proper managerial policies are laid down.
II. Incidents after April 1, 1980:
A. Sometime in the month of May, 1980, a salesman of the respondent
named Hernaldo Porquez figured in a vehicular collision causing damage
to the respondent’s delivery ‘pick-up’ vehicle. This incident was
brought to the attention of the Cebu main office through the cashier of
the Iloilo Branch three days after the incident. The incident has
caused damage to the respondent corporation assessed to more than Two
Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).When Benito Uy, a member of the Board of Directors and Treasurer
of the said respondent corporation, inquired from the complainant as to
the details of the vehicular incident and the remedy or measures taken
by the Iloilo Branch, the complainant claimed lack of knowledge about
the incident. The complainant likeÂwise failed to promptly provide
administrative discipline to the erring employee.The posture of ignorance adopted by the complainant has shocked the
Cebu head office. For a manager ignorant of what happened to the
activities of his erring personnels causing damage to the property of
the company place the business operation of the company in grave
jeopardy.On account of this incident, the complainant was reprimanded by the
Cebu Head Office and Fred Cisneros has to go back to Iloilo to enable
the complainant manage the Iloilo Branch satisfactory to the head
office. As noted, this incident occurred during the observation period
as previously mentioned.
III. – Complainant’s resignation with Warner Barnes:
Even as of May, 1980 while complainant was then performing his
duties as Branch Manager, he was still connected with Warner Barnes
where he was employed as some sort of Accountant or Finance Officer. He
informed Mr. Cisneros that just in case he could not qualify he will go
back to Warner Barnes, Unfortunately, Warner Barnes pressed the
complainant to finally decide whether he will stay with Warner Barnes or
to resign and join the respondent corporation. Thus facing the risk of
not being qualified he chose to stay with the respondent. After all,
the benefits and privileges that he enjoys is much better than that of
Warner Barnes.With that decision, the complainant tendered his resignation with
Warner Barnes, willing to assume the risk in connection with his new job
as manager.
IV. – Complainant repeatedly failed to follow company policies and instructions from Head Office:
In the course of complainant’s operation, he was required to submit
promptly a monthly Income or Loss Statement and Comparative Projection
and Actual Sales Report. The prompt submission of these reports are
mandatory considering that his performance should be closely monitored
while under probation.These two reports were not submitted promptly to the Head Office of
respondent Corporation, to the extent that on several occasions, he was
warned of his apparent neglect and inability to comply with this basic
instructions. Considering his lack of managerial experience, the
respondents could not yet afford to leave everything to the complainant
the Iloilo Branch without the closest supervision on his managerial
ability.Inspite of series of reminders to prepare and submit the said
documents, he miserably failed to submit the same. Finally he was
called by Nemesio Garcia, the President of the respondent corporation,
to come to the head office in Cebu in order to evaluate his performance
and to produce the latest monthly Income and Loss Statement and
Comparative Projection and Actual Sales Report. He was likewise
instructed to bring with him the Iloilo Branch Accountant, who will
provide the basic information on the operation of the Iloilo Branch. He
was specifically informed by Mr. Cisneros that he will be ready to
present facts relative to average monthly expenditures, sales,
collection, account receivables, minimum and maximum inventory and all
other matters realted to the operation of the Iloilo Branch.The meeting took place in the presence of the President and two
Vice-President. When complainant was asked basic information about
company operations of the Iloilo Branch, the complainant failed to
provide accurate and necessary answers and could not produce the
necessary data available. The President and two Vice-President were so
disappointed that they walked out of the conference. Mr. Cisneros was
then called up and he was made to explain to the President why the
complainant selected as probable manager could not provide basic
information as to the operation of Iloilo Branch, inspite of his stature
as Certified Public Accountant.The President and the members of the Board of Directors began to feel
apprehensive that they are taking big risk in entrusting a multi-million
peso investment to a man who could not comply simple routinary
information vital to management.Again in August, 1980, when the President and the Vice-President went
to Iloilo in an inspection trip, supervising the operation of the Iloilo
Branch, the complainant could not present the business condition of the
Iloilo Branch. Information sought by the President such as Sales, Cash
and Charges Collection, Budgeted and Actual Sales, Projection, Accounts
Receivables could not be obtained and no datas to this effect were
provided. Facts and reports were in disarray.
V – The Performance of the Complainant:
In the Comparative Performance Report dated July 8, 1980, on the
operation of Iloilo Branch for the month of June and May, 1980, the cash
sales of the Iloilo Branch went down to P91,318.41 for June, 1980 as
compared to the sales for the month of May, 1980 in the sum of
P174,697.77. The lowering of the sales could have been averted had the
necessary reports been submitted on time to assess the performance of
the complainant. This sudden dip in the sales of the Iloilo Branch was
not properly explained by the complainant.Extension of personal accounts, were committed by the complainant
in blatant violation of company policy. It was repeatedly stressed to
the complainant that no personal accounts will be extended by the Iloilo
Branch unless served with clearance from the Head Office in Cebu,
considering the unpaid collecÂtions accummulated by the former manager
of the Iloilo Branch.
The personal accounts extended by the complainant were as follows:
(List omitted.)
As of November 6, 1980, these personal accounts extended by the
complainant produce delinquent accounts amounting to P18,435.80.”Subsequently attached to the above position paper of the Grand Motor
Parts Corporation is the letter of termination addressed to the
complainant Branch Manager which reads:“25 August 1980
Mr. Narciso Belicena, Jr.
Grand Motor Parts Corporation
Iloilo City
Dear Nonong:
When you applied for the position of Branch Manager, our
understanding was clear that you will be on provision (sic) for a period
of between four to six months, within which, you may quit with either
verbal or formal notice if you should not desire to continue.Likewise, the Management reserves the right to terminate your
services, if, upon observation, the same is not satisfactory. It was
emphasized that you were taking the risk of possibly losing your job.Management’s observation indicate that you do not qualify for the
position. It is with regret that based on our agreement upon
employment, we have to terminate your services effective immediately.Upon receipt of this formal notice, kindly turn over to Mr. Sammy Gang the Iloilo Branch.
Very truly yours,
GRAND MOTOR PARTS CORPORATION
(SGD.) FRED CISNEROS
Personnel Manager”
On November 13, 1980, complainant Branch Manager filed his answers to
the position paper of the corporation, reiterating that he was hired as
Branch Manager but not on an acting capacity and on the terms and
conditions recited in his original position paper; that his resigÂnation
from Warner Barnes took effect on May 1, 1980 and he started working
with Grand Motor Parts Corporation on April 1, 1980 as he was on a
30-day vacation/sick leave from Warner; that the mishap involving the
company’s vehicle which was used without his permission and knowÂledge
could not be blamed upon him; that the alleged reports which he failed
to send were not reminded to him, verbally or in writing; that his sales
for the period April to August, 1980 is higher compared to that for the
same period in 1979; that the alleged accounts remaining unpaid as of
November 6, 1980 would have been collected in full if he were still the
Manager; that if ever there was no written contract on his employment on
a regular basis, it was because he was now a regular employee and
contracts are given only to those who will pass the probationary period
and the rank-and-file employees, not to those managerial ones.
He further stated and We quote: “I trusted manageÂment. Besides, if I
will pass through the probationary period, I will reject the offer.
Furthermore, I was employed, very secure and happy in my job when Mr.
Cisneros offered me the job. I had a very nice, comfortable, secure and
well-paying job at Warner, Barnes and enjoying certain privileges and
fringe benefits which other companies in Iloilo City does not offer.
Mr. Fred. Cisneros ‘pirated’ me from Warner, Barnes. x x x”
To further support his stand, Belicena submitted: Letter of Warner,
Barnes, & Co., Inc. dated April 28, 1980 accepting his resignation
effective May 1, 1980; Letter of transmittal dated August 19, 1980 of
all the reports as discussed thoroughly with Mr. Fred Cisneros on August
18, 1980; (3) Letter of April 29, 1980 requesting for written
instructions. This was not answered; (4) LetÂter of July 7, 1980 from
head office addressing him as Manager; (5) Certification from BF
Goodrich, Bacolod City; and (6) Profit and Loss Statement of Grand Motor
Parts Corp. for the period April to June, 1980 showing net profit of
P196,267.85 for three months operation of P65,422.63 per month.
As earlier indicated, the Regional Director, Nazareno Q. Bedia, ruled in
favor of the Branch Manager, ordering his reinstatement to his former
position with backwages without loss of seniority rights, benefits and
other privileges under existing laws, decrees and agreements, verbal or
written, entered into by the parties at the time of hiring. He held
that “(f)rom the quantum of evidence, We are of the opinion, and so hold
that comÂplainant’s appointment was permanent in nature. Complainant
was ‘pirated’ so to speak. He was persuaded to leave his position as
the No. 2 official of Warner, Barnes Co., Inc., Iloilo Branch, where he
has already served for 14 years. For complainant, to leave an already
lucrative position for another job which is not permanent would be
highly incomprehensible. The argument by respondent that complainant
was motivated by the fact that he wants to be No. 1 in the office is
pure conjecture. Complainant rose from the ranks to the No. 2 position.
It is safe to assume that in the ordinary course of events he would
rise to the No. 1 position in the office where he was employed.”
On the issue whether complainant was dismissed for cause or not, the
Regional Director held that there were no such acts or omissions
committed or omitted by the complainant as charged by the corporation;
that the assertion of respondent corporation that complainant could not
prepare the financial reports promptly is unbelievable considering that
complainant is a financial officer of a marketing firm, Warner Barnes
& Co., Inc.; that as regards his sales performance, complainant’s
assertion is explicit in that his sales for the period of his employment
is bigger than the sales in the previous year covering the same period;
that the alleged extension of credit against company policy is not
backed up by even an iota of evidence since no policy, which was made
known to complainant was presented; that complainant was not neglectful
nor incompetent in respect to the wrong doing of a personnel of the
Iloilo Branch who later tendered his resignation and the incident
settled.
The Grand Motor Parts Corporation appealed the decision of the Regional
Director to the Ministry of Labor and in his order dated October 22,
1981, the Deputy Minister, Vicente Leogardo, Jr., by authority of the
Minister, affirmed the order appealed from and disÂmissed the appeal of
the Corporation for lack of merit.
According to the Deputy Minister’s order now under review, respondent’s
contention that complainant was hired on a temporary or probationary
basis for a period of four to six months and as such, his services could
be terminated anytime and that his dismissal on the main is premised on
his failure to qualify for the job of manager and inability to manage
the branch, “is without merit. The fact that complainant was enticed
and pirated by respondent from the Warner Barnes Co., Inc. and given
higher pay and benefits is an eloquent proof of respondent having
recognized complainant’s technical qualification and experience, which
exempt him from the probationary provisions of the Labor Code. The
grounds for dismissal cited by respondent are in the nature of
generalizations and do not constitute justifiable causes which should be
substantiated by proof of specific acts of managerial incomÂpetence.
Considering that complainant was hardly four months in the service, we
are more inclined to believe that any shortcoming on his part perceived
by the resÂpondent was attributable to his newness on the job for which a
reasonable time for orientation and adjustment must be permitted,
considering the magnitude of his duties and responsibilities as Branch
Manager.”
Petitioner now comes to Us and assails the order of the Deputy Minister of Labor on the ground that:
I. The petitioner was denied due process when it was ordered to
reinstate private respondent with backwages without hearing with
opportunity to cross-examine and submit evidence on the basis merely of
position papers, inspite of an agreement by the parties that summary
investigation will be conducted thereafter; andII. Grave abuse of discretion was committed against petitioner
when it was ruled that private respondent cannot be dismissed during the
period of probation and on the fifth month he was dismissed for failing
to pass probation, and the Labor Minister admitted in his order that
private respondent had shortcomings.
The more important and substantial issue that We must first resolve is
whether private respondent’s employment as Branch Manager was temporary
or probationary, and not regular and permanent.
It is quite significant and very striking at the outset that Belicena,
private respondent herein, did not and could not present any written
proof of his appointment or employment as regular and permanent Branch
Manager of petitioner corporation, which he assumed as of April 1, 1980.
It is admitted by him that it was only on April 28, 1980 that he
resigned from his previous position as Finance Officer of Warner, Barnes
& Co., Inc. effective May 1,1980, which fact lends strong support
to petitioner’s contention that the hiring of Belicena was probationary
for a period of four to six months. For otherwise, Belicena, if his
appointment was regular and permanent as of April 1, 1980, would have
resigned immediately from Warner, Barnes & Co. on April 1, 1980
because by then, he was assured of a permanent tenure. But he had to
send his resignation letter on April 28, 1980, hence, it is only logical
and reasonable to conclude that before April 28, 1980, he was not yet
sure of his status in the petitioner corporation, whether he would
qualify for the job as Manager and thus be hired permanently, or not.
Private respondent’s claim that if there was no recent contract on his
employment on a regular basis, it was because he was now a regular
employee and contracts are given only to those who will pass the
probationary period and the rank-and-file employees, not to those
managerial ones, is not only unsupported by the evidence but also
contrary to the usual and customary business practices, especially in
multi-million enterprises as the petitioner corporation herein. And
considering the magnitude of its sales and operations, petitioner
corporation must have taken the necessary precautions to test the
qualifications, ability and performance of its Branch Manager through a
probation period before he is hired permanently and given liberal terms
and benefits, including 1% of the net annual proceeds in sales.
Moreover, private respondent is a CPA, Finance Officer, and No. 2 man in
Warner, Barnes & Co. For the security of his tenure in his new
position, it was his duty, at least he owed it to himself, to have
insisted on a written contract of regular and permanent employment as
Branch Manager, but he did not. The conclusion is inevitable that his
hiring was temporary.
We find merit in the contention of the petitioner that “private
respondent had not been hired as Manager of any firm before his
employment with petitioner. The highest previous position he attained
was that of Finance Officer. His position with petitioner’s Iloilo
Branch was his first as Manager. Moreover, Warner, Barnes & Co.,
private respondent’s previous employer, and petitioner are engaged in
different kinds of business. Managing petitioner’s Iloilo Branch was an
entirely new experience for private respondent. It was, therefore,
necessary for priÂvate respondent to undergo a period of probation to
test his qualifications, skill and experience.” Indeed, the employer has
the right or is at liberty to choose as to who will be hired and who
will be declined. It is within the exercise of this right to select his
employees that the employer may set or fix a probationary period within
which the latter may test and observe the conduct of the former before
hiring him permanently. “The right of a laborer to sell his labor to
such persons as he may choose is, in its essence, the same as the right
of an employer to purchase labor from any person whom it chooses. The
employer and the employee have thus an equality of right guaranteed by
the Constitution. ‘If the employer can compel the employee to work
against the latter’s will, this is servitude. If the employee can
compel the emÂployer to give him work against the employer’s will, this
is oppression.'” (Mills vs. United States Printing Co., 99 App. Div.;
605; 91 N.Y.S. 185, 189-192, cited in Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. vs.
Pambusco Employees’ Union, Inc., 68 Phil. 541).
The finding of both the Regional Director and the Deputy Minister of
Labor that private respondent was “pirated” is not supported by the
evidence on record. On the contrary, the records disclose that Belicena
applied for the position as Branch Manager on March 13, 1980 as shown
in his application marked Annex “F” to the petition, pp. 41-43, rollo,
wherein he stated that the starting salary desired was P3,250.00. Even
assuming that he was induced to work with the petitioner corporation,
the inducement is a normal and legitimate practice in business circles
and concerns in the face of stiff competition to net more sales and
increase the market for their products.
The next issue to be resolved is whether private resÂpondent, being a
probationary Branch Manager, was terminated for just cause. It is
petitioner’s contention that Belicena was terminated during his
probationary period because(a) he failed to submit promptly the monthly
Income and Loss Statement, Comparative Projections & Actual Sales
Report; (b) the Comparative Performance Report dated July 8, 1980 on the
operation of the Iloilo Branch for the month of June and May, 1980, the
Cash Sales of the Iloilo Branch went down to P91,318.41 for June, 1980
as compared with the sales for the month of May, 1980 in the sum of
P174,697,77; (c) Belicena in violation of company policy and without
clearance from the head office in Cebu, extended personal accounts in
favor of 15 persons which as of November, 1980 produced delinquent
accounts amounting to P18,435.80; and (d) Belicena claimed lack of
knowledge of the vehicular accident caused by a subordinate and failed
to provide prompt administrative disciplinary action against the erring
employee.
The answers of Belicena to the above charges submitted in his position
papers dated October 22, 1980 and November 13, 1980 hereinabove cited,
indicate, to Our mind, inadequacy, if not inefficiency in the discharge
of his duties as Branch Manager. His letter dated August 19, 1980 to
the President of petitioner corporation enclosing (1) Actual Sales and
Collection for GMPC from Jan.-July, 1980; (2) Cash and Charge Sales for
GMPC from Jan.-July, 1980 compared to Budget; (3) GMPC – Financial
Statement from January to June 1980; (4) GMPC Trial Balance as at June
30, 1980; (5) Monthly breakdown of our expenses from January to June
1980; (6) Our GTRC Report on actual sales and collection, January-July
1980; (7) Our GTRC report on Charge and Cash Sales as compared to
Budget, clearly prove and demonstrate his failure to submit monthly
reports. The reports submitted by him in the cited letter are for the
seven months period of January to July, 1980. That a monthly report of
operations is essential to the business of the petitioner cannot be
evaded or ignored by a Branch Manager, for the viability of its business
life may well depend on these monthly reports.
Again, private respondent’s letter-request dated April 29, 1980
requesting “a. My specific jobs and responsibilities and limitations, as
well; b. Our company’s accounting policies and procedures and the
monthly reports and deadlines; c. Our company’s policies and procedures
in the extension of CREDIT and approval of CREDIT LIMITS,” simply shows
that after being on the job as Branch Manager for nearly a month (he
joined the corporation on April 1, 1980), Belicena has not shown any
effort or initiative to familiarize himself with his duties and
obligations, although petitioner corporation submits that a copy of the
company brochure containing the requested data was given him (See Annex
“I”, pp. 106Â131, rollo). Further, the fact that the erring
salesman involved in the vehicular accident resigned afterwards does not
absolve the Branch Manager for his failure to exercise supervision over
his subordinates and to impose discipline over him. Neither can he
escape responsibility for extending personal accounts to some 15
individuals in violation of a company policy-by citing the letter of the
Vice President/General Manager of petitioner corporation (Annex “K”, p.
133) which refers to the corporate account of Asturias Sugar Central to
the corporation.
The records further disclose that petitioner’s Vice President/General
Manager called the attention of Branch Manager Belicena in his letter
dated July 7, 1980 (Annex “K”‘ to the petition, records, p. 133) that
“(h)is June sales is only about 50% of our target. Can we not improve
that performance this July?” This in effect proved that the Branch
Manager was not discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the
management.
In fine, from the documentary evidence on record, We hold that
petitioner has clearly and convincingly established that the private
respondent failed to pass the probationary period for the position of
Branch Manager, and for lack of confidence, petitioner was justified in
terminating or dismissing private respondent herein. As the respondent
Deputy Minister of Labor has admittedly confirmed in the assailed Order,
the “shortcoming on his (Belicena) was attributable to his newness on
the job.”
Recent decisions of this Court on the dismissal of managerial employees
have laid down the doctrine that under Policy Instructions No. 8 of the
Secretary of Labor “the employer is not required to obtain a previous
written clearance to terminate managerial employees in order to enable
him to manage effectively.” (Associated Citizens Bank vs. Ople, L-48896,
Feb. 24, 1981, cited in Bondoc vs. People’s Bank & Trust Company,
103 SCRA 599). In St. Luke’s Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of Labor, 116
SCRA 240, We held that “it looks to Us more practical and proper to
leave things as they are instead of compelling petitioner to reinstate
in a sensitive position one whose attitude could per chance spell not
only more financial difficulties to petitioner but also possible
inadequacies in the required dietary standards it has to maintain for
its patients. Petitioner does not have to wait ‘for one more serious
act of insubordination and disrespect to express instructions of
management-(which would warrant or) mean forfeiture of [her] right to
employment with petitioner.'”
Under the law, Article 282 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee
may be terminated after six months for a just cause or when he fails to
qualify as a regular employee, to wit:
“Art. 282. Probationary Employment. – Probationary employment
shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started
working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating
a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails
to qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. An
employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be
considered a regular employee.”
It is true that mere allegation of loss of confidence by employer on his
employee is not sufficient cause for his dismissal. But loss of
confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee, and proof
beyond reasonable doubt of the employee’s misconduct is not required to
dismiss him of this charge. It is sufficient if there is some basis for
such loss of confidence. (Central Textile Mills, Inc. vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 90 SCRA 9). While a managerial employee may
be dismissed merely on the ground of loss of confidence, the matter of
determining whether the cause for dismissing an employee is justified on
ground of loss of confidence, cannot be left entirely to the employer.
Impartial triÂbunals do not rely only on the statement made by the
employer that there is “loss of confidence” unless duly proved or
sufficiently substantiated. (De Leon vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 100 SCRA 691).
In the case at bar, We are satisfied that petitioner has valid grounds
to charge its Branch Manager with loss of confidence by reason of the
overall performance he has demonstrated within the probationary period
which showed that he is not qualified to be the regular or permanent
Branch Manager of petitioner corporation in Iloilo City. His dismissal
does not appear to Us as arbitrary, fanciful or whimsical. In the last
and ultimate analysis, the prerogative and judgment to hire employees
under terms and conditions designed to achieve success in its business
activities belongs to management which may not be unduly impaired,
limited or restricted. We, therefore, rule that public respondents
committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of
private respondent without substantial evidence in support thereof.
With the resolution of the issue under consideration in favor of the
petitioner corporation, We deem it unnecessary to discuss and resolve
the assailment of the petitioner that it was denied due process in the
proceedings before the Regional Director.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Order of the Deputy
Minister of Labor dated October 22, 1981 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. No costs.
PETITION GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.