NATIONAL BOOKSTORE, INC. V.

CA, NLRC

FACTS:

Petitioner National Bookstore employed private respondents Marietta Ymasa and Edna Gabriel, who both
claimed to have been illegally dismissed.

Private respondents reported for work to count the previous days sales. Ymasa counted the money
intended to be deposited with Interbank while Gabriel attended to the money for deposit with PCIB. The
counting was done in the presence of a watcher. The counted money was placed inside 2 separate
plastic bags and were sealed. The plastic bags were tied together with rubber band. Ymasa put said
plastic bags inside her cabinet which she locked, and were later taken out and placed in another bag and
were handed over to the Assistant Manager for safekeeping in the Branch vault. The private respondents
retrieved the bags from the assistant manager, to be ready for pick up by the tellers of Interbank and
PCIB. However, the amount for deposit to PCIB was found short of P 42,758.

The Management asked the respondents to explain in writing as to why they shouldn’t be dismissed for
the loss of company funds. In their reply, private respondents denied responsibility over the lost company
funds and argued that they had no access to the vault and prior to leaving the office, they were subjected
to a thorough body search. They added that in their 13 years of service, it has been their practice to turn
over their collection without any proof of receipt.

Despite that, petitioner bookstore notified them of the termination of their services for gross neglect of
duty and loss of confidence. Thus, private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the
Labor Arbiter who ruled in their favor. The petitioner appealed before the NLRC but was denied.
Petitioner later filed before the CA a petition for certiorari for grave abuse of discretion on the part of
NLRC.

CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence, this petition seeking to set aside the resolution of the
CA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents were illegally dismissed.

RULING:

As to the reversal sought by the petitioner, the honorable Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of
merit. As to the question on whether or not the private respondents were illegally dismissed, the Court
ruled in the affirmative.

The requisites for valid dismissal are due process and valid cause. Anent the first requisite, the petitioner
was able to observe. It gave the private respondents an opportunity to explain why they shouldn’t be
dismissed and petitioner sent another notice informing the private respondents of its decision to terminate
their services setting forth the reasons therefor. However, it must also show convincing evidence that the
dismissal was based on any of the just or authorized causes provided by law for termination by an
employer.

In the case, the services of the private respondents were terminated for gross neglect of duty and loss of
confidence. Records show that the private respondents were not negligent. In order to constitute a just
cause for the dismissal, the neglect of duty must not only be gross but also habitual. Thus, a single or
isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. On the other
hand, 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 cause. The LA, NLRC, and CA were unanimous in declaring that there was
no willful breach of confidence in the case and petitioners failed to establish with certainty the facts upon
which it could be based.