ePACIFIC GLOBAL CONTACT CENTER, INC. v. MA.

LOURDES CABANSAY,
G.R. No. 167345
November 23, 2007
Nachura, J.

Facts: Respondent Ma. Lourdes Cabansay was hired as Senior Traning Manager of ePacific Global
Contact Center, Inc. In March 2002, respondent was tasked to prepare a new training process for the
company’s Telesales Trainees.

After reviewing the training module, Mr. Rosendo S. Ballesteros, the company’s Senior Vice President-
Business Development Group, found that the same did not contain any changes and that they were not
ready to present it. He thus instructed respondent to postpone the presentation and the
implementation of the new training process.

Adversely reacting to respondent’s attitude, Ballesteros sent Cabansay a memo, informing the latter
that he found her message to be a clear act of insubordination, causing him to lose his trust and
confidence in her as Manager of the Training Department. He then asked respondent to explain in
writing why she should not be terminated as a consequence of her acts.

Clarifying that this was merely a case of miscommunication and that she had no intention to disregard
the order to postpone the implementation of the new training process, Cabansay submitted two
memoranda. However, on the same day she submitted her second explanation, Cabansay received a
memorandum notifying her that she had been terminated from the service effective immediately for
having committed an act of insubordination resulting in the managements loss of trust and confidence
in her.

Respondent, thus, filed a case for illegal dismissal.

Issue: Whether respondent Cabansay was illegally dismissed?

Held: No, the petitioners anchor their termination of respondents services on Article 282, paragraphs (a)
and (c), of the Labor Code.

Willful disobedience or insubordination necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the
employees assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse
attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee
and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a
willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. 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
employers arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain
at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not also be indiscriminately used as a shield by
the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute
a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and show that the employee
concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.
In the case at bar, the reasonableness and lawfulness of Ballesteross order is not in question, so is its
relation to the duties of respondent. As to the willfulness of her conduct, the same is manifest in her
e-mail reply, which, as it is written, is characterized by abject aggressiveness and antagonism: the e-
mail has a begrudging tone and is replete with capitalized words eliciting her resolve to indeed
contravene the SVPs directive.

Indeed, by refusing to postpone the presentation and implementation of the new training process,
respondent intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, breached the trust and
confidence reposed in her by her employer. To present and discuss a training module, which is
deemed by management as still inadequate in its content, will certainly not only waste the time,
effort and energy of the participants in the discussion but will also entail losses on the part of the
company.

Respondents conduct, in this case, is sufficient basis for the company to lose its trust and confidence
in her. Under the circumstances, the company cannot be expected to retain its trust and confidence in
and continue to employ a manager whose attitude is perceived to be inimical to its interests. Unlike
other just causes for dismissal, trust in an employee, once lost, is difficult, if not impossible to regain.

Let it be stressed that insofar as the application of the doctrine of trust and confidence is concerned,
jurisprudence has distinguished the treatment of managerial employees or employees occupying
positions of trust and confidence from that of rank-and-file personnel. With respect to the latter, loss of
trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in
question, but as regards managerial employees, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such
employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his or her dismissal. For this purpose,
there is no need to present proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that there is some basis for
the loss of trust or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible
for the misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.
PRUDENTIAL BANK v. ANTONIO S.A. MAURICIO
G.R. No. 183350
January 18, 2012
Villarama, Jr., J.

Facts: Spouses Cruz executed in favor of the Bank several Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over their
property. On September 7, 1992, an audit investigation was conducted in the Magallanes Branch.

From March 1991 to August 1991, consisted mostly of dollar check deposits composed of U.S. Treasury
Warrants. Despite the fact that Spouses Cruz were not the payees of said instruments and neither of
them endorsed the same, Mauricio allowed immediate withdrawals against them.

Mauricio was directed to report for work at the Head Office immediately. In his reply, Mauricio stated
that he is exhausting all efforts to get the Spouses Marcelo and Corazon Cruz to settle their obligation
immediately. He further stated that he is willing to face an investigation body to explain his side on the
matter so he can clear his name and reputation.

As requested by Mauricio, a Hearing Committee was constituted and several hearings were held. In all
the proceedings, Mauricio was duly represented by counsel.

The Hearing Committee found that there was sufficient evidence to hold Mauricio guilty of the charges
against him. In a Memorandum addressed to the banks Board of Directors, it recommended that
Mauricio be dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. The Board of Directors issued
Resolution adopting the Hearing Committees recommendation.

Thereafter, Mauricio filed with the National Labor Relations Commission a complaint for illegal
dismissal. The Bank, on the other hand, contended that the dismissal of Mauricio was for a just cause,
citing the imprudent acts prejudicial to the banks interest and violations of several office orders and
regulations which resulted to loss of trust and confidence on him.

Issue: Whether Mauricio was illegally dismissed?

Held: Yes, Mauricio was not in any way prompted by malicious motive in approving the encashment
and/or withdrawal. Caught in a dilemma of cashing the checks despite the irregularities evident on their
face and refusing such encashment but risk the possibility of losing a valued client, Mauricio chose the
former. In doing so, Mauricio could not have acted in gross negligence because he made sure that in the
final analysis, his employer would not be left holding an empty bag. Mauricio even sought the advice of
the banks legal counsel who assured him that his actions were proper given the circumstances, and
acted only after being assured that the Spouses Cruzs real estate mortgages could be made to answer
for the premature encashments.

The Bank should be reminded that for a dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence to be valid, the
breach of trust must be willful, meaning it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely,
without justifiable excuse. Loss of trust and confidence stems from a breach of trust founded on
dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent act. This is obviously not the case here.
LORES REALTY ENTERPRISES, INC., v. VIRGINIA E. PACIA
G.R. No. 171189
March 9, 2011
Mendoza, J.

Facts: On October 28, 1998, LREI’s acting general manager, petitioner Sumulong, through Ms. Julie
Ontal, directed Pacia to prepare Check Voucher as partial payment for LREI’s outstanding obligation to
the Bank of the Philippine Islands-Family Bank. Pacia did not immediately comply with the instruction.
After two repeated directives, Pacia eventually prepared Check. Later, Sumulong again directed Pacia to
prepare Check Voucher to settle the balance of LREI’s outstanding indebtedness with BPI-FB. Pacia once
again was slow in obeying the order.

To explain her refusal to immediately follow the directive, Pacia reasoned out that the funds in LREI’s
account were not sufficient to cover the amounts to be indicated in the checks.

On November 6, 1998, Pacia received a notice of termination stating, that she was being dismissed
because of her willful disobedience and their loss of trust and confidence in her.

Pacia then filed a Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice due to Harassment, Constructive Dismissal, Moral
and Exemplary Damages against LREI and Sumulong.

Issue: Whether Pacia’s dismissal was justified under the circumstances?

Held: No, Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for which an employer may
terminate the services of an employee:

ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any
of the following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

The offense of willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two (2) requisites: (1) the employee’s
assailed conduct must have been willful, that is characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and
(2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must
pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.
Pacia’s initial reluctance to prepare the checks, which was seemingly an act of disrespect and defiance,
was for honest and well intentioned reasons. Protecting LREI and Sumulong from liability under the
Bouncing Checks Law18 was foremost in her mind. It was not wrongful or willful. Neither can it be
considered an obstinate defiance of company authority. The Court takes into consideration that Pacia,
despite her initial reluctance, eventually did prepare the checks on the same day she was tasked to do it.