FACTS: Petitioner engaged in a mass hiring through a manpower service agency. Respondent was one of those hired as assistant cook. Petitioner discovered some missing and unaccounted stock so an inquiry was conducted. It was discovered that employees were bringing home inventory. An in house investigation was held and they were asked to explain such. The agency was given a list of those involved. They were called and asked to explain in writing that same day. When nobody complied petitioner and the agency issued separate notices of termination. Later on respondent was included and also terminated sc he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. He argues that he was made to testify against those charged but he refused so he was terminated for allowing the thefts to take place. He argues that it couldn’t be true because he complained to the police that he was threatened to keep quiet by the employees stealing. Another reason for his dismissal was his failure to meet minimum company standards. The LA dismissed the complaint but the NLRC and CA ruled that the dismissal was without cause. The hotel argues that it was the agency that dismissed him and not the hotel.
ISSUE: W/N there was illegal dismissal by the hotel.
HELD: The SC ruled that there was illegal dismissal. An employee may be terminated for loss of trust and confidence but this can’t be used to justify every dismissal so the Court came up with guidelines for the application of the doctrine: loss of confidence should not be simulated, it shout not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper illegal or unjustified, should not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and must be genuine, not a mere after thought to justify earlier or action taken in bad faith. It applies only to employees who occupy positions of trust and confidence or to situations where the employees are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property. It must be shown that there is reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct or infraction and that the nature of his participation rendered him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. Loss of confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust, founded in clearly established facts. As assistant cook, respondent is charged with the care of food preparation in the coffee shop and responsible for the custody of food supplies and must see to it that there is sufficient stock in the kitchen. He should not permit food or other materials to be taken out without the necessary order slip or authorization, as there is hotel property. Thus, the nature of his position as assistant cook is one charged with trust and confidence. In this case the burden of proof establishing the charge wasn’t overcome and there was no due process as the 2 notice requirement wasn’t met and he was never given an opportunity to explain his side.
0 comments:
Post a Comment