361. Salas vs.

Aboitiz, June 27, 2008

MP: Indeed, an employer has the right, under the law, to dismiss an employee based on fraud or willful
breach of the trust bestowed upon him by his employer or the latter's authorized representative. However,
the loss of trust must be based not on ordinary breach but, in the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code,
on willful breach. 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.

FACTS: Salas was hired as assistant utility man by respondent Aboitiz One, Inc. and was initially assigned at
the Maintenance Department-Manila Office. He rose from the ranks and became material controller. As
material controller, Salas was tasked with monitoring and maintaining the availability and supply of Quickbox
needed by Aboitiz in its day-to-day operations. On June 4, 2003, Salas had run out of Large Quickbox,
hampering Aboitiz's business operation. An administrative hearing was conducted to give Salas ample
opportunity to explain his side which the company finds unreasonable and not convincing. Aboitiz, through a
letter, terminated him. Salas replied asking if he could avail early retirement plan or instead of being
terminated, he will resign and if he can stay until June 31, 2003 so he can have time looking for new job.
Abpotiz replied that he can only extend a month or until August 15, 2003. Claiming termination without
cause, Salas filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against or illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement,
and for payment of full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. Aboitiz
responded that there was valid termination.

The LA sustained his dismissal. The NLRC reversed the LA decision. The CA set aside the NLRC decision
stating that there is valid and just cause for dismissal because three valid grounds attended the dismissal of
Salas: (1) Serious misconduct under Art. 282 (a), Labor Code, for his tampering the records to show that the
stock on 31 May 2003 is for 02 June 2003; (2) Gross and habitual neglect under Art. 282 (b), Labor Code, as
the NLRC no less admits that "for the nth time" Salas repeatedly "demonstrated laxity in the performance of
his duty"; and (3) willful breach by Salas of the trust reposed on him by Aboitiz, under Art. 282 (c) of the
Labor Code, because as "warehouseman", and therefore a confidential employee, Salas concededly tampered
company records to hide his gross and habitual neglect of duty.

ISSUE: w/n there is a valid and just cause for termination.

RULING: NO. Undoubtedly, it was Salas' duty, as material controller, to monitor and maintain the availability
and supply of Quickbox needed by Aboitiz. Records show that Salas made a requisition for Quickbox as early
as May 21, 2003; that he made several follow-ups with Eric Saclamitao regarding the request; and that he
even talked to the supplier to facilitate the immediate delivery of the Quickbox. He cannot be held liable for
gross negligence. The SC do not see any semblance of willful breach of trust on the part of Salas. It is true that
there was erasure or alteration on the bin card. Aboitiz, however, failed to demonstrate that it was done to
cover up Salas' alleged negligence. Undoubtedly, no just cause exists to warrant Salas' dismissal.
Consequently, he is entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights, and to
payment of backwages. However, we limit the award of backwages because we find that Salas was not
entirely faultless.

362. San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, April 16, 2008

FACTS: Ibias (respondent) was employed by petitioner SMC on 24 December 1978 initially as a CRO operator
in its Metal Closure and Lithography Plant. Respondent continuously worked therein until he advanced as
Zamatic operator. He was also an active and militant member of a labor organization called Ilaw Buklod
Manggagawa (IBM)-SMC Chapter. According to SMC’s Policy on Employee Conduct, absences without
permission or AWOPs, which are absences not covered either by a certification of the plant doctor that the
employee was absent due to sickness or by a duly approved application for leave of absence filed at least 6
days prior to the intended leave, are subject to disciplinary action characterized by progressively increasing
weight. The same Policy on Employee Conduct also punishes falsification of company records or documents
with discharge or termination for the first offense if the offender himself or somebody else benefits from
falsification or would have benefited if falsification is not found on time. It appears that per company records,
respondent was AWOP on the following dates in 1997: 2, 4 and 11 January; 26, 28 and 29 April; and 5, 7, 8,
13, 21, 22, 28 and 29 May. For his absences on 2, 4 and 11 January and 28 and 29 April, he was given a written
warning dated 9 May 1997 that he had already incurred five (5) AWOPs and that further absences would be
subject to disciplinary action. For his absences on 28 and 29 April and 7 and 8 May, respondent was alleged to
have falsified his medical consultation card by stating therein that he was granted sick leave by the plant
clinic on said dates when in truth he was not. After the completion of the investigation, SMC concluded that
respondent committed the offenses of excessive AWOPs and falsification of company records or documents,
and accordingly dismissed him. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SMC. The LA
believed that respondent had committed the absences pointed out by SMC but found the imposition of
termination of employment based on his AWOPs to be disproportionate and affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: W/N there was just cause to terminate the employment of respondent.

RULING: YES. Respondent cannot feign surprise nor ignorance of the earlier AWOPs he had incurred. He was
given a warning for his 2, 4, and 11 January and 26, 28, and 29 April 1997 AWOPs. In the same warning, he
was informed that he already had six AWOPs for 1997. He admitted that he was absent on 7 and 8 May 1997.
He was also given notices to explain his AWOPs for the period 26 May to 2 June 1997, which he received but
refused to acknowledge. It does not take a genius to figure out that as early as June 1997, he had more than
nine AWOPs. In any case, when SMC imposed the penalty of dismissal for the 12th and 13th AWOPs, it was
acting well within its rights as an employer. An employer has the prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules
and regulations necessary for the proper conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in
order to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with. An employer enjoys a
wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of
the employees.

363. Puncia vs. Toyota Shaw, G.R. No. 214399, June 28, 2016
FACTS: Armando Puncia was employed as a Marketing Professional tasked to sell 7 vehicles monthly as
quota. However, Puncia sold only 1 vehicle for 2 months, prompting Toyota to send him a Notice to Explain.
Puncia replied that it was a lean month. A hearing was conducted but he failed to appear despite notice.
Toyota sent a Notice of Termination. Toyota dismissed him on the ground of insubordination for his failure to
attend the scheduled hearing and justify his absence. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair
labor practice, and payment of back wages. He argued that he was only dismissed after Toyota discovered
that he was the Director of the Toyota-Shaw Pasig Workers Union-Automotive Industry Worker's Alliance.

ISSUES: (1) W/N there was compliance with substantive due process?
(2) W/N there was compliance with procedural due process?

RULING: (1) YES. The practice of a company in laying off workers because they failed to make the work quota
has been recognized in this jurisdiction. The petitioners' failure to meet the sales quota assigned to each of
them constitute a just cause of his dismissal, regardless of the permanent or probationary status of
employment. Failure to observe prescribed standards of work, or to fulfill reasonable work assignments due
to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal. Such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to
attain work goals or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable
period, or by producing unsatisfactory results.
(2) NO. The following should be considered in terminating an employee:
(a) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for
termination against them. In order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and
defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis
for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice; (b) After serving the
first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing wherein the employees will be given the
opportunity to explain and clarify his defenses, present evidence in support thereof, and rebut evidence
against him; and (c) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve
the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge
against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance
of their employment. The Notice of Termination shows that Puncia was dismissed not for the ground stated in
the Notice to Explain, but for gross insubordination on account of his non-appearance in the scheduled
hearing without justifiable reason.

364. LBC Express v. Mateo, June 9, 2009

MP: The services of a regular employee may be terminated only for just or authorized causes, including gross
and habitual negligence under Article 282, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code. Gross negligence is characterized
by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other
persons may be affected.
FACTS: Respondent Mateo, designated as a customer associate, was a regular employee of petitioner LBC
Express. His job was to deliver and pick-up packages to and from LBC and its customers. For this purpose,
Mateo was assigned the use of a Kawasaki motorcycle. On April 30, 2001 at about 6:10 p.m., Mateo arrived at
LBC’s Escolta office to drop off packages coming from various LBC airposts. He parked his motorcycle directly
in front of the LBC office, switched off the engine and took the key with him. However, he did not lock the
steering wheel because he allegedly was primarily concerned with the packages, including a huge sum of
money that needed to be immediately secured inside the LBC office. He returned promptly within three to
five minutes but the motorcycle was gone. He immediately reported the loss to his superiors at LBC and to the
nearest police station. LBC directed Mateo to appear in his office to explain his side and for formal
investigation. As directed, Mateo appeared and presented his side. After investigation, he received a notice of
termination from LBC. Mateo thereafter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of backwages and
reinstatement with damages. After the parties submitted their respective position papers, the labor arbiter
found Mateo’s dismissal to be lawful on the ground that he was grossly negligent to which the NLRC affirmed.
The CA however reversed the ruling.

ISSUE: 1. W/N the respondent is illegally dismissed.

2. W/N respondent was afforded due process.

RULING: 1. NO. Mateo was undisputedly negligent when he left the motorcycle along Burke Street in Escolta,
Manila without locking it despite clear, specific instructions to do so. His argument that he stayed inside the
LBC office for only three to five minutes was of no moment. On the contrary, it only proved that he did not
exercise even the slightest degree of care during that very short time. Mateo deliberately did not heed the
employer’s very important precautionary measure to ensure the safety of company property. Regardless of
the reasons advanced, the exact evil sought to be prevented by LBC (in repeatedly directing its customer
associates to lock their motorcycles) occurred, resulting in a substantial loss to LBC.
2. YES. The memorandum directing Mateo to be present for investigation clearly provided the reasons or
grounds for Mateo’s investigation. As stated there, the grounds were the "alleged carnapping of the
motorcycle and the alleged pilferage of a package." Nothing could be clearer. What the law merely requires is
that the employee be informed of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. The
memorandum did just that. Mateo was thereafter given the opportunity to explain his side and was handed
the requisite second notice (of termination). Procedural due process was therefore complied with. The law
protecting the rights of the employee authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. All
told, Mateo’s dismissal was for just cause and was validly carried out

365. Bughaw vs. Treasure Island

MP: The charge of drug abuse inside the company’s premises and during working hours against petitioner
constitutes serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination.
FACTS: Petitioner was employed as production worker by respondent. Respondent was receiving
information that many of its employees were using prohibited drugs during working hours and within the
company premises. Sometime, one of its employees, Erlito Loberanes was caught in flagrante delicto while in
possession of shabu. Loberanes was arrested and sent to jail. Loberanes implicated petitioner in the crime by
claiming that part of the money used for buying the illegal drugs was given by the latter, and the illegal drugs
purchased were for their consumption for the rest of the month. Respondent served a Memo for Explanation
to petitioner requiring him to explain within 120 hours why no disciplinary action should be imposed against
him for his alleged involvement in illegal drug activities. Petitioner was further directed to appear at the office
of respondent’s legal counsel for the hearing on the matter. However, the petitioner was placed under
preventive suspension for the period of 30 days effective upon receipt of the Notice. Notwithstanding said
Memo, petitioner failed to appear before the respondent’s legal counsel on the scheduled hearing date to
explain his side on the matter. Respondent sent a second letter to petitioner directing him to attend another
administrative hearing but petitioner again failed to show up. Respondent, in a third letter, terminated the
latter’s employment. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The LA ruled in favor of petitioner since
the respondent failed to present substantial evidence to establish the charge leveled against the petitioner.
Further, respondent failed to comply with due process when it immediately suspended petitioner and
eventually dismissed him from employment. The NLRC affirmed while the CA reversed on the grounds of
patent misappreciation of evidence and misapplication of law.

ISSUE: W/N the petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment

RULING: YES. The charge of drug abuse inside the company’s premises and during working hours against
petitioner constitutes serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination. Misconduct is
improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not merely an error in
judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the Act must be of such a grave and aggravated
character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless, in
connection with the work of the employee, constitute just cause for his separation. This Court took judicial
notice of scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user. It is beyond question
therefore that any employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly continue doing his duties without
posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his employer.