FACTS: Petitioner Carmelita Nokom was employed as manager by private respondent Rentokil for its Healthcare Division. In April 1996, fictitious invoices were sent to clients made to inflate the gross revenue of the Healthcare Division; and Nokom was placed on preventive suspension as initial findings showed her to be involved in such anomaly. Similar anomalies were discovered in the Pest Control Division, whose head was also placed on preventive suspension. Petitioner admitted the irregularities and made no explanation. Petitioner failed to appear during the hearing. After the investigation, petitioner’s employment was terminated in a letter. Framie Ong- dela Luna of the Pest Control Division was likewise terminated. Petitioner filed with the labor arbiter a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries. The LA found for petitioner. The NLRC reversed and set aside such decision finding that Nokom was directly involved in the fraudulent activities and had waived her right to due process for failing to explain her side either in writing or in hearing. Nokom was found to have been dismissed for “fraud or willful breach” of the trust reposed on her by her employer or duly authorized representative.” Petitioner appealed to the CA, which was dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed.
HELD: Yes. To constitute a valid dismissal, two requisites must concur: the dismissal must be for any of the cause provided in Art. 282 of the Labor Code; and the employee must be given due notice and the opportunity to be heard and present his side. In the case at bar, petitioner’s position demanded a high degree of responsibility, including the unearthing of fraudulent and irregular activities. Petitioner failed to do such her bare denials did not disprove her guilt. The ordinary rule is that one who knowledge peculiarly within his control, and refuses to divulge it, cannot complain if the court puts the most unfavorable construction upon his silence, and infers that disclosure would have shown the fact to be as claimed by the opposing party. Findings of fact of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are not to be disturbed on appeal. Loss of confident is one of the just causes for a valid disrnissal; and it is enough that there is “some basis “for such loss of confident. The guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence as enunciated in Midas Touch Food Corporation are:
a. loss of confidence should not be simulated;
b. it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified;
c. it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and
d. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.
An employer enjoys wide latitude in the promulgation of company rules; and in this case, the policies of respondent were fair and reasonable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment