Cocoplans vs.

Villapando

Facts: Respondent was a financial advisor hired in 2000 and subsequently promoted to Division
Head/Sales Manager. In 2002, Respondent was terminated. Villapando filed a complaint for Illegal
Dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioner alleges that Villapando committed a breach of trust by persuading her subordinates to leave
the company. The company President confronted Villapando and she admitted to the same. A
disciplinary committee was formed but Villapando failed to attend the meeting to defend herself. Thus,
she was terminated. Several affidavits were presented in defense of Petitioner’s allegations.

Respondent alleges that she was forced to resign by the Ceasar Michaelena. She denies that she
persuaded her subordinates to leave the company. She presented six affidavits in her defense.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Villapando citing that the committee’s task was to investigate
Villapando’s resignation and Michaelena expanded the committee in a fault-finding expedition. The
NLRC reversed citing that the elements of lawful termination are present: 1. Due process and 2. Breach
of trust. The CA reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision citing that one of the affidavits of the Petitioner
were not presented in the committee and only presented in the Labor Arbiter, thus, of doubtful
probative value.

Issue: Whether Villapando was dismissed for a valid cause.

Held: No. The elements of a valid termination was not present.

Breach of Trust was not proven by substantial evidence. It must also be noted that in termination cases,
the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon
the employer.

Michaelena’s affidavit is based on hearsay and cannot be admitted.

Gurago’s affidavit was presented only before the Labor Arbiter. Thus, Villapando never had the
opportunity to oppose such claims. Even if admitted, it only shows that Dario Martinez persuaded
Gurago to leave the company.

Petitioner’s only proof left is the joint affidavit of Perez and Sandoval. However, Perez also submitted a
non-notarized affidavit in defense of Villapando. Moreover, Sandoval was promoted by Villapando. Thus,
the affidavit was contradictory to petitioner’s claims. A single joint affidavit of probative value can hardly
be called substantial.

Thus, Villapando was Illegally dismissed.