COFFEE BEAN AND TEALEAF PH, INC V.

ARENAS

Rolly Arenas was employed by CBTL as a barista. He was was seen eating non-CBTL products at CBTL’s al
fresco dining area while on duty which caused the counter to be left empty. Katrina Basallo, CBTL duty
manager, noticed an iced tea bottle being chilled inside the bin where the ice for the customers’ drinks is
stored. When asked, Arenas muttered, “kaninong iced tea?” and immediately picked the bottle and
disposed it. His tardiness on three separate occasions was also raised.

CBTL found Arenas’ written explanation to be unsatisfactory, and dismissed him for 1. Serious
misconduct or willful disobedience and 2. Gross negligence. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Where the employer’s handbook imposed only the penalty of written warning for the offense of
eating, while on duty, products not sold by employer, and where the employer gave a justified
explanation for the said infraction, dismissal cannot be made on the ground of willful disobedience.

Two elements of willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal: (1) the employee’s assailed
conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the
order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to
the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

Arenas was on a scheduled break when he was caught eating non-CBTL products. During that time, the
other service crews were in charge of manning the counter. CBTL’s employee handbook imposes only
the penalty of written warning for the offense of eating non-CBTL products inside the store’s premises.

Additional notes on the two other infractions:

1. For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious;
(b) it must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) it must show that the
employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.

Arenas’ subsequent act of owing to his mistake only shows the absence of a deliberate intent to
lie or deceive his CBTL superior. Thus, his action did not amount to serious misconduct.

2. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of, or failure to exercise even a slight care or
diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences
without exerting any effort to avoid them. There is habitual neglect if based on the
circumstances, there is a repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time.

The infrequency of his tardiness already removes the character of habitualness. These late
attendances were also broadly and spaced out, negating the complete absence of care.

LORES REALTY ENTERPRISES V. PACIA

Assistant manager and OIC of petitioner’s Accounting Department, Virginia Pacia, was directed by Acting
General Manager Lorenzo Sumulong to prepare Check Voucher No. 16477 as partial payment for LREI's
outstanding obligation, but Pacia did not comply until after two repeated directives. Sumulong again
directed Pacia to prepare Check Voucher No. 16478 settle the balance of LREI's outstanding
indebtedness, but the same thing happened.

Pacia explained that her refusal to immediately follow the directive was because the funds in LREI's
account were not sufficient to cover the amounts to be indicated in the checks, and she only wanted to
protect LREI from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law. But she was dismissed for willful
disobedience and the employer’s loss of trust and confidence in her. Pacia filed a complaint for ULP due
to Harassment, Constructive Dismissal, and damages.

Where the employee’s refusal to comply with a superior’s order to prepare checks is justified by
reason of insufficiency of funds, she cannot be dismissed by reason of willful disobedience.

The offense of willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two (2) requisites: (1) the employee's
assailed conduct must have been willful, that is characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and
(2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must
pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

The availability or unavailability of sufficient funds to cover the check is immaterial in the physical
preparation of the checks. Pacia's initial reluctance to prepare the checks, however, which was
seemingly an act of disrespect and defiance, was for honest and well intentioned reasons. Protecting
LREI and Sumulong from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law was foremost in her mind. It was not
wrongful or willful. Neither can it be considered an obstinate defiance of company authority. X x x
Despite her initial reluctance, eventually did prepare the checks on the same day she was tasked to do
it.

EPACIFIC GLOBAL CONTACT CENTER V. CABANSAY

Ma. Lourdes Cabansay was hired by petitioner as Senior Training Manager, and was tasked to prepare a
new training process for the company’s Telesales Trainees. Senior VP-Business Devt. Group, Rosendo
Ballesteros, however, found that the same did not contain any changes, hence, they were unready to
present it. The latter instructed Cabansay to postpone the presentation and the implementation of the
new training process. Cabansay, through an email, refused to comply:

"This is a very simple presentation and I WILL NOT POSTPONE it today, it's very easy to
comprehend and as per YOUR INSTRUCTION we will be implementing it next week, so when
should we present this to the TLs? Let's not make SIMPLE THINGS COMPLICATED. I will go on
with the presentation this afternoon."
Despite her written explanations, her act was seen as insubordination resulting in the management’s
loss of trust and confidence in her, for which she was dismissed. She filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, and claimed among others that that the directive was not clearly made known to her.

Indeed, by refusing to postpone the presentation and implementation of the new training process,
respondent intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, breached the trust and
confidence reposed in her by her employer.

SC mentioned the elements of Willful disobedience or insubordination as discussed above^

X x x Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach
of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A 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. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness,
whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the
employer. Loss of confidence must not also be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against
a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for
dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and show that the employee concerned is unfit to
continue working for the employer.

As to the willfulness of her conduct, the same is manifest in her e-mail reply, which, as it is written, is
characterized by abject aggressiveness and antagonism: the e-mail has a begrudging tone and is replete
with capitalized words eliciting her resolve to indeed contravene the SVP's directive.

X x x managerial discretion was not without limits. Its parameters were contained the moment her
discretion was exercised and then opposed by the immediate superior officer/employer for being
against the policies and welfare of the company. Hence, any action in pursuit of the discretion thus
opposed ceased to be discretionary and could be considered as willful disobedience.

Indeed, by refusing to postpone the presentation and implementation of the new training process,
respondent intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, breached the trust and
confidence reposed in her by her employer. X x x

Let it be stressed that insofar as the application of the doctrine of trust and confidence is concerned,
jurisprudence has distinguished the treatment of managerial employees or employees occupying
positions of trust and confidence from that of rank-and-file personnel. With respect to the latter, loss
of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in
question, but as regards managerial employees, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such
employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his or her dismissal. For this purpose,
there is no need to present proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that there is some basis for
the loss of trust or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible
for the misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.
Respondent's conduct, in this case, is sufficient basis for the company to lose its trust and confidence in
her. Under the circumstances, the company cannot be expected to retain its trust and confidence in and
continue to employ a manager whose attitude is perceived to be inimical to its interests. Unlike other
just causes for dismissal, trust in an employee, once lost, is difficult, if not impossible to regain.