Breach of trust and confidence

I have been working as an operations manager for six years now. One of
the benefits we enjoyed in the company was the reimbursement of meal
and transportation expenses incurred while rendering overtime work. I
submitted my explanation denying any personal knowledge in the
alteration of the receipts I forwarded to our finance department when I
was made to explain such alterations. Can the president of the company
terminate me on the ground of loss of trust and confidence?

Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, to wit:

“ARTICLE 297. Termination by employer. — An employer may

terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
“(a) Serious misconduct or willful 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 representatives; and
“(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing” (Emphases supplied).
In the case of The Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs Clarita P. Gacayan
(GR 149433, June 22, 2011), the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice
Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, discussed:

“It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that loss of trust and confidence

constitutes a just and valid cause for an employee’s termination. xxx
Law and jurisprudence have long recognized the right of employers to
dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence. More so, in
the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of
responsibility, loss of trust justifies termination.

Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is

premised from the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of
trust and confidence. This situation holds where a person is entrusted
with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or
care and protection of the employer’s property. But, in order to
constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be
‘work-related’ such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit
to continue working for the employer.

“We held that the language of Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code states
that the loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of
the trust reposed in the employee by the employer. Ordinary breach will
not suffice; it must be willful. 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. And in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying
positions of responsibility, like respondent Gacayan, the loss of trust and
confidence must spring from the voluntary or willful act of the
employee, or by reason of some blameworthy act or omission on the part
of the employee.” (Emphases supplied)

Applying the abovementioned law and the jurisprudence in your

situation, your company must adduce evidence that you actually altered
the receipts or the one responsible for the alterations to intentionally,
maliciously and willfully prejudice your company. As an operations
manager, you handle delicate and confidential matters in the
management, strategic and operational decision-making of your
company. As such, you are holding a position of responsibility or of trust
and confidence. Your company can only terminate your employment if it
will be proven that you intentionally and knowingly submitted tampered
or altered receipts to support your claim for meal and transportation
reimbursements, adversely affecting your integrity and character, which
can be ample basis for your company to lose its trust and confidence on
you.

Leave privileges under RA 9262

I am a senior accountant in a multinational company located in Makati
City. I filed a case against my former partner for violation of Republic
Act (RA) 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
of 2004). The case is pending before a Regional Trial Court in Taguig
City. I am having a hard time attending our hearings because of my work
schedule. I was told by my officemate that I have leave privileges under
RA 9262. Is this true?

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9262 provides:

“SECTION 43. Entitled to Leave. – Victims under this Act shall be

entitled to take a paid leave of absence up to ten (10) days in addition to
other paid leaves under the Labor Code and Civil Service Rules and
Regulations, extendible when the necessity arises as specified in the
protection order.

“Any employer who shall prejudice the right of the person under this
section shall be penalized in accordance with the provisions of the Labor
Code and Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Likewise, an employer
who shall prejudice any person for assisting a co-employee who is a
victim under this Act shall likewise be liable for discrimination.

xxx

“SECTION 42. Ten-day paid leave in addition to other leave benefits. –

At any time during the application of any protection order, investigation,
prosecution and/or trial of the criminal case, a victim of VAWC who is
employed shall be entitled to a paid leave of up to ten (10) days in
addition to other paid leaves under the Labor Code and Civil Service
Rules and Regulations and other existing laws and company policies,
extendible when the necessity arises as specified in the protection order.
The Punong Barangay/kagawad or prosecutor or the Clerk of Court, as
the case may be, shall issue a certification at no cost to the woman that
such an action is pending, and this is all that is required for the employer
to comply with the 10-day paid leave. For government employees, in
addition to the aforementioned certification, the employee concerned
must file an application for leave citing as basis RA 9262. The
administrative enforcement of this leave entitlement shall be considered
within the jurisdiction of the Regional Director of the DoLE under
Article 129 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, for
employees in the private sector, and the Civil Service Commission, for
government employees.” (Emphasis supplied)

Applying the aforementioned law in your situation, you are entitled to a

10-day leave, which you can use during the application of any protection
order, investigation, prosecution or trial of your case. Before you can
avail of such leave privileges, you must first obtain a certificate from
your barangay that you have filed a case under RA 9262. The law
likewise states that any employer or agency head, who denies the
application for leave, and who shall prejudice the victim or any person
for assisting her, shall be held liable for discrimination and violation of
RA 9262.

Annulment of marriage based on

psychological incapacity
My husband often plays computer games, such as League of Legends,
Defense of the Ancients, which is popularly known as DOTA. If he’s
not playing, he’s either sleeping or drinking alcohol with friends at
home. Since our marriage in 2014, I’ve been complaining that he
should find a decent job and that we should not be dependent on his
parents. He always ignores me whenever I bring up my issue with him.
I even bought him newspaper almost everyday but he told me that the
competition in big companies is tight and he has no chance of getting
the job. Moreover, he argued that he has no clothes to wear during
interviews. To inspire him, I bought him new clothes needed for his
interviews. Sometime later, he told me he already found a job. Of
course, I was overjoyed with the news he gave me. Weeks after,
however, I was informed that my husband had been going to his
mother when he was supposed to be at work. Thereafter, I confronted
him about the issue. He answered me honestly that the rumors are
true. He told me that he pretended to have work, so that I would stop
nagging him about applying for a job. Further, he argued that his
parents could support our needs for the family, especially the
education of our children.

I consulted a law student if there’s a way to annul our marriage. He

simply answered that I may file for the annulment of our marriage
based on psychological incapacity. Can you please enlighten me what
psychological incapacity is all about? Thank you.

Psychological incapacity as a ground for the annulment of marriage

may be found in Article 36 of Executive Order 209 or the Family
Code of the Philippines, to wit:

“Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
It may be emphasized, however, that this law did not define the term
“psychological incapacity.” The Supreme Court, on the other hand,
enunciates in a long line of cases that psychological incapacity, as a
ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
should refer to no less than a mental–not merely physical–incapacity
that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the
Family Code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live
together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render help and
support. There is hardly a doubt that the intent of the law has been to
confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. Article 68 of the law provides:

“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together; observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity; and render mutual help and support.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Silvino A. Ligarde vs.

May Ascension A. Patalinghug, et al. (G.R. No. 168796, April 15,
2010; ponente, Associate Justice Jose Mendoza) stressed that
“[p]sychological incapacity required by Art. 36 [of the Family Code]
must be characterized by [a] gravity, [b] juridical antecedence and [c]
incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the
party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required
in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved.”

Thus, the intendment of the law is to confine the meaning of

psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage. The Supreme Court
further explained in the case of Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena
Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te (G.R No. 161793, February 13, 2009; ponente,
former Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura) that “in
dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological
incapacity, the court is not demolishing the foundation of families but
it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to
allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot
comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from
remaining in that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of
physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug
dependence or addiction and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations
of a sociopathic personality anomaly.”