Breach of Trust in Employment: Philippine Law on Loss of Confidence

Loss of Confidence as Grounds for Termination: A Philippine Legal Perspective

TLDR; This case clarifies that Philippine employers can terminate employees for breach of trust or loss of confidence, even without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The key is whether the employer has a reasonable basis to believe the employee is responsible for misconduct. This principle is crucial for businesses managing employees in sensitive positions.

G.R. No. 112630, September 05, 1997 (CORAZON JAMER AND CRISTINA AMORTIZADO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE AND/OR JOHN GO, RESPONDENTS.)

Introduction

Imagine discovering a significant cash shortage at your business. Trust, the bedrock of any employer-employee relationship, is immediately shaken. But when can an employer legally terminate an employee based on a breach of that trust? This question is at the heart of many labor disputes in the Philippines, and the case of Jamer vs. National Labor Relations Commission provides valuable insight.

Corazon Jamer and Cristina Amortizado, long-time employees of Isetann Department Store, were dismissed after a substantial cash shortage was discovered. The central legal issue was whether Isetann had valid grounds to terminate them based on loss of trust and confidence, and whether due process was observed. The Supreme Court’s decision offers essential guidance on the application of this principle in Philippine labor law.

Legal Context: Breach of Trust and Due Process

Philippine labor law recognizes an employer’s right to terminate an employee for just cause. One such cause, as outlined in Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, is fraud or willful breach of trust. This provision allows employers to safeguard their businesses by dismissing employees who have demonstrated dishonesty or a lack of integrity.

However, this right is not absolute. The law also mandates that employers observe due process before terminating an employee. This means providing the employee with two critical notices:

A written notice informing the employee of the specific acts or omissions that are grounds for dismissal.

A subsequent written notice informing the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss them.

Furthermore, the employee must be given a fair opportunity to be heard and defend themselves against the allegations. Failure to comply with these procedural requirements can render a dismissal illegal, even if there is a valid cause.

Case Breakdown: The Isetann Shortage

Corazon Jamer and Cristina Amortizado worked as store cashiers at Isetann Department Store. Their responsibilities included reconciling cash sales, tallying receipts, and preparing bank deposits. In July 1990, a significant shortage of P15,353.78 was discovered. Further investigation revealed other discrepancies, including an under-deposit of P450.00 and issues related to petty cash expenses.

Isetann placed Jamer and Amortizado under preventive suspension and conducted an administrative investigation. Dissatisfied with their explanations, the company terminated their employment on August 31, 1990. The employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The case followed this procedural path:

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Jamer and Amortizado, finding their dismissal illegal.

Isetann appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which remanded the case for further proceedings.

A different Labor Arbiter again ruled in favor of the employees.

Isetann again appealed to the NLRC, which this time reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding the dismissal valid.

Jamer and Amortizado then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision, emphasizing that loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissal. The Court quoted the NLRC’s findings:

“[T]he Labor Arbiter has failed to consider the fact that complainants-appellees were accorded the chance to explain their side as to the shortages and that they have utterly failed to do so providing basis for their valid dismissal.”

The Court further noted that the employees’ failure to report the irregularities and their attempts to conceal the underpayment constituted a breach of trust. As the Supreme Court stated:

“Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee and proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee’s misconduct is not required to dismiss him on this charge. It is sufficient if there is ‘some basis’ for such loss of confidence or if the employer has reasonable ground to believe or to entertain the moral conviction that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct…”

Practical Implications: Protecting Your Business

This case underscores the importance of establishing clear procedures for handling company funds and maintaining accurate records. Employers must also conduct thorough investigations when discrepancies arise and provide employees with a fair opportunity to explain their side of the story. It also highlights the importance of filing a motion for reconsideration, which the petitioners failed to do, prior to elevating the case to the Supreme Court.

For employees in positions of trust, such as cashiers or managers, even minor acts of dishonesty can be grounds for dismissal. Long years of service do not excuse a breach of trust; in fact, they may be seen as an aggravating factor.

Key Lessons

Establish clear accounting procedures and internal controls.

Conduct thorough investigations of discrepancies.

Provide employees with due process before termination.

Document all findings and communications.

Employees in positions of trust must maintain the highest standards of integrity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is

ASG Law