SM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOANN HIZON, ATTY.
a phone call from the HRD Manager that he does not need
MENA OJEDA, JR., AND ROSALINE QUA, PETITIONERS,
VS. TEODORE GILBERT ANG, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 220434, July 22, 2019
FACTS
This case arose from a complaint for illegal dismissal with
money claims by Respondent against the Petitioners.
Respondent was hired by SMDC as its Project Director
since December 2006. Sometime in January 2012, he
applied for a two-week vacation leave, from March 30,
2012 to April 15, 2012, which was approved by Qua. On
March 7, 2012, he received a Notice to Explain from Atty.
Ojeda, Jr., concerning the cost status of one of his
assigned projects and on March 13, 2012, he submitted
his explanation on the various issues and concerns. On
March 20, 2012, Atty. Ojeda, Jr. and Hizon called him for
a meeting where he was informed that the management,
without stating specific reasons, wants him to resign from
his current work.
Respondent went on his scheduled vacation and reported
back to work on April 16, 2012. After office hours,
respondent received Memorandum with subject Show
Cause Notice, which contained, among others, a
statement informing him of a 30-day preventive
suspension without pay.
On May 17, 2012, he informed Hizon that his suspension
was over and he will report back to work; but he received
to report to work because he was already dismissed.
Respondent received a termination letter dated May 15,
2012. He was surprised to learn of an alleged May 7 and
9, 2012 administrative hearing mentioned in the said
termination letter because he was never given any notice
or even notified of the said hearings.
Consequently, he filed a case for illegal dismissal with
money claims against the petitioners. The LA dismissed
the complaint. The LA found that there were substantial
documentary evidence showing that there was a just and
valid cause for respondent's dismissal on the grounds of
incompetence and gross and habitual neglect of duties.
Upon appeal, the NLRC dismissed respondent’s appeal and
affirmed the LA. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari with
the CA which granted the petition and reversed and set
aside the ruling of the labor tribunals. The CA found that
respondent has been illegally dismissed and that the
allegation of gross and habitual neglect of duty is not
supported by any substantial evidence.
ISSUE
whether respondent may be dismissed from employment
on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
HELD
YES. An employer cannot be compelled to retain an
employee who is guilty of acts inimical to his interests. This
is more so in cases involving managerial employees or
personnel occupying positions of responsibility. In the Set against these parameters, the Court holds that
present case, respondent was holding an executive respondent was validly dismissed based on loss of trust
position in SMDC as Project Director and there is no doubt and confidence. Respondent was not an ordinary company
that respondent is a managerial employee. As such, he employee. His position as one of SMDC's Project Director
should have recognized that such intricate position is clearly a position of responsibility demanding an
requires the full trust and confidence of his employer. extensive amount of trust from petitioners. The entire
project account depended on the accuracy of the
Due to the nature of his occupation, respondent's
classifications made by him. It was reasonable for the
employment may be terminated for willful breach of trust
petitioners to trust that respondent had basis for his
under Article 297(c) of the Labor Code. To justify a valid
calculations and specifications.
dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the
concurrence of two (2) conditions must be satisfied: (1)
the employee concerned must be holding a position of Respondent's failure to properly manage these projects
trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that clearly is an act inimical to the company's interests
would justify the loss of trust and confidence. These two sufficient to erode petitioners' trust and confidence in him.
requisites are present in this case. He failed to perform what he had represented or what was
expected of him, thus, petitioners had a valid reason in
The first requisite has already been determined.
losing confidence in him which justified his termination.
Respondent, as SMDC's project director, is holding a
position of trust and confidence. As to the second
The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his
requisite, that there must be an act that would justify the
employees is subject to the regulation by the State in the
loss of trust and confidence, however, the degree of proof
exercise of its paramount police power. However, there is
required in proving loss of trust and confidence differs
also an equally established principle that an employer
between a managerial employee and a rank and file
cannot be compelled to continue in employment an
employee:
employee guilty of acts inimical to the interest of the
In terminating managerial employees based on loss employer and justifying loss of confidence in him.
oftrust and confidence, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required, but the mere existence of a
basis for believing that such employee has breached
the trust of his employer suffices.