G.R. No.

149433
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that loss of trust and confidence constitutes a just and valid
cause for an employees termination. In Etcuban, Jr. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.,[8] this Court held:
Law and jurisprudence have long recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by
reason of loss of trust and confidence. More so, in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying
positions of responsibility, loss of trust justifies termination. Loss of confidence as a just cause for
termination of employment is premised from the fact that an employee concerned holds a position
of trust and confidence. This situation holds where a person is entrusted with confidence on
delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employers
property. But, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-
related such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the
employer.
Verily, in Tiu and/or Conti Pawnshop v. National Labor Relations Commission,[11] we held that the
language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the loss of trust and confidence must be
based on willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by the employer. Ordinary breach
will not suffice; it must be willful. Such 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.[12]And in the case of supervisors or personnel occupying positions of
responsibility, like respondent Gacayan, the loss of trust and confidence must spring from the
voluntary or willful act of the employee, or by reason of some blameworthy act or omission on the
part of the employee

The essence of due process is that a party be afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and
to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense. In administrative proceedings such
as the one at bench, due process simply means the opportunity to explain ones side or the
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of (Helpmate Inc. v.
NLRC citing M. Ramirez Industries and/or Manny Ramirez v. Secretary of Labor, et al., 266 SCRA
111)
Abandonment as a just and valid ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal
of the employee to resume his employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, after notice
to return, is not enough to amount to such abandonment. For a valid finding of abandonment, two
factors must be present, viz: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable
reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second
element as the more determinative factor being manifested by some overt acts. In abandonment,
there must be a concurrence of the intention to abandon and some overt acts from which an
employee may be deduced as having no more intention to work. The intent to discontinue the
employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustifIed a fact that herein
petitioners failed to show.

Even assuming that there was abandonment, which is a just cause for dismissal, there was non-
compliance with the statutory requirement of notice. The law requires that the employer must
furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of
employment can be legally effected, to wit: 1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular
acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which informs
the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him. Thus, if there is truth to the claim that
Marinas abandoned his job, petitioners should have formally notified Marinas that such
abandonment is the cause of his termination from service. No written notice was given to private
respondent that his services were being terminated and there was violation of his right to security
of tenure and his right to due process.