Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 184150^[*]  (Unirock Corporation v. Gerardo Gutierrez and Court of Appeals).

Respondent Gerardo Gutierrez worked for petitioner Unirock Corporation from 1982. When he resigned in 2006, he held the position of warehouseman which earned him P288.72 a day. According to him, Unirock forced him to resign after falsely accusing him of dishonesty, discourtesy, and poor performance.^[1]  Unirock also penalized him for incurring absences and refusing to travel even when he suffered from hypertension. After a series of memoranda, Unirock suspended him for 15 days from October 19, 2006 for disrespect of a supervisor. When he reported back for work, the company informed him of his dismissal. He claimed that he did not get his 13^th month pay.

Unirock countered that it actually dismissed Gutierrez on the grounds of breach of trust and confidence and gross neglect of duties. On September 20, 2006 it asked him to explain the loss of spare parts and other materials that were in his custody. In response, he offered to pay the P13,370.00 value of the same. But Unirock terminated his employment on November 9, 2006.^[2]

On November 21, 2006 Gutierrez filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and nonpayment of his 13^thmonth pay. On May 7, 2007 the Labor Arbiter^[3] (LA) dismissed his complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit but ordered Unirock to pay him P6,695.00 as 13^th  month pay.^[4] The LA found that Unirock had valid reasons for terminating Gutierrez's employment. It did not act out of disdain or feeling of enmity. It had reason to lose its trust and confidence in him due to neglect in keeping company properties placed in his custody.^[5]  And, contrary to his allegations, Unirock followed due process. It gave him a chance to explain his side and, when he did not do so, it gave him notice of termination.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision.^[6] It noted that, apart from his failure to account for company properties in his care, Gutierrez committed 17 other violations of company rules and protocols.^[7] The NLRC held that an employee's past infractions determine his value to the company. The continued employment of one who consistently violates policies would not only be inimical but also oppressive to the company's interest. As regards Gutierrez's claim that loss of trust and confidence did not apply to rank-and-file employees, the NRLC held that the nature of his job required the company's full trust and confidence in him. Lastly, the NLRC joined the LA's finding that Unirock observed due process in his dismissal.^[8]

On petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA),^[9] the latter court reversed the NLRC decision,^[10]  holding Unirock's dismissal of Gutierrez for loss of trust and confidence and neglect of duties illegal since Article 282 of the Labor Code required that "neglect of duties" had to be gross and habitual. In the same way, "breach of trust" must be willful. Even if the 17 other violations were imputed to him, these still did not warrant dismissal.

Lastly, as regards due process, the CA ruled that Unirock's explanation slip, which notified respondent of the alleged missing items, was incomplete. It did not state who conducted the inventory and no list of the alleged missing items was attached to the slip. The company belatedly provided him with an itemized inventory only in its succeeding letters. Thus, the CA awarded respondent full backwages and separation pay, hence, this appeal.^[11]

The termination letter that Unirock sent to Gutierrez shows that it dismissed him for loss of trust and confidence because of his failure to account for company properties that were entrusted to his care. Thus the letter states: 

"Bilang Bodegero ng kompanya sa Zambales job site, ay malaki ang pagtitiwala sa iyo ng Pangasiwaan na magagampanan mo ang tungkulin mo na bantayan at pangalagaan ang mga pag-aari ng kompanya sa bodega at masiguro na nasa wasto ang mga "records" mo dito at nasusubaybayan mo ang pag-iisyu sa mga kagamitan, piyesa, materyales at iba pang pag-aari ng kompanya mula dito. 

Subalit, napatunayan ng Pangasiwaan na hindi mo ginampanan ang nasabing tungkulin mo sa itaas at nagpabaya ka sa iyong responsibilidad dahilan sa pagkawala ng mga pag-aari ng kompanya sa bodega na tinatayang umaabot sa humigit-kumulang na P13,370.03 xxx."^[12]

The above is valid and sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court has defined a position of trust and confidence as "one where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of his employer's property^[13] or funds."^[14] A warehouseman like Gutierrez belonged to this kind. And when an employer has basis for losing confidence that its warehouseman can properly take care of the properties under his custody, as in fact, certain objects had been missing resulting in financial damage, then even the Court cannot force the employer to continue keeping that person in its payroll.^[15]

Respondent tried to shift the blame to the security guard. But it has been consistently held that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.^[16] Other than his bare statements, respondent has failed to give proof that it was the security guard or some other person who took the missing properties. In this context, contrary to the ruling of the CA, it is not the security guard's affidavit which was self-serving, but the respondent's letter-explanation.

The second question is whether or not Unirock gave Gutierrez the required notices relating to his dismissal. Due process in cases like this means the opportunity given to the employee to explain his side. In labor cases, this means giving the employee two notices, a notice of explanation and a notice of termination, before dismissing him. These were all accorded Gutierrez in this case. Providing him with a list of what properties were missing and giving him the name of the person the company assigned to double check his inventory are unnecessary. In sum, Unirock validly dismissed him.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 103014 dated July 4, 2008 and REINSTATES the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated November 15, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[*] J. Mendoza, no part. J. Sereno, additional member, per raffle dated January 10, 2011.

^[1] Lifted from the NLRC decision, rollo, pp. 33-34, which the CA adopted in its decision on pp. 43-55. See also the LA decision on pp. 25-26: On March 10, 2006 he (respondent) received a show-cause memorandum for his failure to register the diesel delivery of Caltex in January 2006 (Annexes "A" and "A- 1"). He again received another memorandum on July 10, 2006 for alleged discourtesy against Noli Mejia, his superior (Annex "B"). A day after, again, a memorandum was handed to him for his alleged failure to follow the instructions of his superior (Annexes "C" and "C-1"). On August 1, 2006, he was issued a memorandum for absence without leave, dishonesty in violation of DENR Rule 879 and for failure to update the stock card of the warehouse (Annexes "D" to "G"). x x x On October 19, 2006 he received a notice of Disciplinary Action placing him under a 15-day suspension due to alleged dishonesty as reported on August 20, 2006 x x x.

^[2] Records, p. 37, Annex "5."

^[3] Labor Arbiter Dolores M. Peralta-Beley.

^[4] Rollo, p. 31.

^[5] Id. at 29-30.

^[6] Issued by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III.

^[7] Rollo, pp. 33-38.

^[8] Id. at 33-37.

^[9] The case was docketed as CA-G.R.SP 103014.

^[10] Penned by Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, rollo, pp. 43-55.

^[11] Rollo, pp. 11-23.

^[12] Supra note 2.

^[13] Eats-cetera Food Services Outlet v. Letran, G.R. No. 179507, October 2. 2009, 602 SCRA 507 515 citing Panday v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 67664, May 20, 1992, 209 SCRA 122, 125.

^[14] Eats-cetera Food Services Outlet, supra, citing Gonzales v. National Labor Relations Commission, 407 Phil. 486, 500 (2001).

^[15] Metro Drug Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 227 Phil 121, 126 (1986).

^[16] Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank), G.R. No. 169570, March 2, 2007 517 SCRA 309, 325, citing Machica v. Roosevelt Service Center, Inc., G.R. No. 168664, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 534, 544-545.