When Can an Employer Dismiss an Employee for Loss of Trust and Confidence?

G.R. No. 114313, July 29, 1996

Imagine a company comptroller, entrusted with managing the firm’s finances, disregards specific instructions and causes a significant cash flow crisis. Can the employer legally terminate their employment? This case delves into the complexities of employee dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, and the crucial role of due process in ensuring fair labor practices in the Philippines.

Introduction

Losing trust in an employee, especially one in a management position, can have serious repercussions for a business. However, Philippine labor law requires employers to follow specific procedures when terminating employment. This case, MGG Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC and Elizabeth A. Molina, explores the delicate balance between an employer’s right to protect its interests and an employee’s right to due process. It highlights that while a just cause for dismissal may exist, failure to observe procedural requirements can still lead to legal repercussions for the employer.

The Supreme Court grappled with whether a comptroller-finance officer’s violation of explicit instructions regarding company funds, leading to a cash flow collapse, justified termination. The case also examined the consequences of not observing due process and whether an internal audit satisfies due process requirements.

Legal Context

In the Philippines, an employer can terminate an employee for just cause, as outlined in Article 282 of the Labor Code. One such cause is “fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.” This is often referred to as “loss of trust and confidence.”

However, the law also mandates that employers must follow procedural due process, which involves providing the employee with two notices:

• A notice of intent to dismiss, stating the reasons for the proposed dismissal.
• A notice of the decision to dismiss, after the employee has been given an opportunity to respond to the charges.

Failure to comply with these requirements can render the dismissal illegal, even if just cause exists. Kwikway Engineering Works vs. NLRC (1991) emphasizes that both notice and hearing are essential elements of due process. The purpose of the notice is to inform the employee of the employer’s intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal; the hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer’s charges against him and defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected. These two requirements cannot be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the 1987 Constitution.

Example: If a cashier is caught stealing money (just cause), the employer can’t simply fire them on the spot. They must issue a notice outlining the charges and give the cashier a chance to explain their side.

Case Breakdown

Elizabeth Molina, the private respondent, was initially employed by MGG Marine Services, Inc. in 1988. In March 1990, before leaving for the United States, MGG’s president appointed Molina as comptroller and overall supervisor, concurrently with her position as financial officer. She was entrusted with corporate funds and instructed to pay obligations as they fell due, using pre-signed checks and corresponding vouchers.

Upon the return of the corporate officers, they discovered that Molina had disobeyed instructions, increasing the amounts on blank checks and paying creditors not specified in the vouchers, resulting in a drastic reduction of the company’s bank deposits. MGG filed estafa charges against Molina, which were later dismissed. Subsequently, MGG terminated Molina’s employment for loss of trust and confidence. Molina then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Molina, but MGG appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The case then reached the Supreme Court.

Key points of the Supreme Court’s decision:

• The Court found that there was indeed a basis for MGG’s loss of trust and confidence in Molina, citing her unauthorized withdrawals and payments.
• However, the Court also found that MGG failed to comply with procedural due process, as Molina was not given proper notice and an opportunity to be heard before her dismissal.

The Court emphasized the importance of cash flow in business, stating:

“In the harsh world of business, cash flow is as important as — and oftentimes, even more critical than — profitability. So long as an enterprise has enough liquidity (cash) to pay its workers, requisition fuel, meet office rentals, maintain its equipment and satisfy its life-line creditors within tolerable limits, it will survive and bridge better days for its recovery.”

Despite finding just cause for dismissal, the Court ruled that MGG’s failure to observe due process warranted an indemnity payment to Molina. As the Court stated:

“To constitute a completely valid and faultless dismissal, it is well-settled that the employer must show not only sufficient ground therefor but it must also prove that it observed procedural due process by giving the employee two notices: one, of the intention to dismiss, indicating therein his acts or omissions complained against, and two, notice of the decision to dismiss; and an opportunity to answer and rebut the charges against him, in between such notices.”

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, deeming the dismissal with just cause but ordering MGG to pay Molina indemnity of P1,000.00, thirteenth month pay, overtime pay, and unpaid salary.

Practical Implications

This case serves as a reminder to employers that even when there is a valid reason to terminate an employee, strict adherence to procedural due process is essential. Failure to do so can result in financial penalties and legal challenges. Employers should establish clear procedures for employee discipline and termination, ensuring that employees are given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.

For employees, this case highlights the importance of understanding their rights and seeking legal advice if they believe they have been unfairly dismissed.

Key Lessons

• Just Cause is Not Enough: Employers must have a valid reason for dismissal AND follow proper procedure.
• Document Everything: Maintain clear records of employee performance, warnings, and disciplinary actions.
• Provide Due Process: Issue notices of intent to dismiss and decision to dismiss, and provide an opportunity for the employee to respond.

Example: A company discovers an employee has been consistently late for work. They must issue a written warning, provide an opportunity for the employee to improve, and only then, after repeated offenses, can they consider termination, following the proper notice and hearing procedures.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What constitutes “loss of trust and confidence” as a just cause for dismissal?

A: It generally refers to situations where an employee in a position of trust commits an act that makes the employer lose confidence in their ability to perform their job duties. This often applies to managerial or supervisory roles.

Q: What are the two notices required for procedural due process in termination cases?

A: The first is a notice of intent to dismiss, outlining the charges against the employee. The second is a notice of the decision to dismiss, issued after the employee has had an opportunity to respond.

Q: What happens if an employer has just cause for dismissal but fails to follow due process?

A: The dismissal may be deemed illegal, and the employer may be required to pay the employee indemnity or damages.

Q: Does an internal audit satisfy the due process requirement?

A: No, an internal audit alone is not sufficient. The employee must be given a formal notice of the charges and an opportunity to present their defense.

Q: What is the significance of cash flow in business?

A: Cash flow is crucial for a company’s survival. It’s the lifeblood that allows it to meet its financial obligations, pay its employees, and continue operations.

Q: What is the effect of acquittal in a criminal case on a labor case?

A: An employee’s acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a finding that he has been guilty of acts inimical to the employer’s interest.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.