Dear PAO,
I worked as a landscaper for a real estate developer. The marketing department directed me to canvass the prices of plants or ornamentals for a project site. They reasoned that transporting the plants from our head office to the project site was too costly; thus, for this particular project, it was more economical to purchase the plants directly from suppliers in the site location. The marketing department approved the canvassed price from one supplier, requested me to purchase the same, and turned over the receipts to them. Three weeks later, they allegedly made another purchase and discovered a disparity in the prices of the plants that I purchased. They intend to dismiss me because of a loss of trust and confidence as I allegedly manipulated the price. Can they do that?
Venti
Dear Venti,
One of the grounds for the lawful termination of an employee is loss of trust and confidence. This is in consonance with Article 297 (c), Presidential Decree 442, as amended and renumbered, or otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines:
“ART. 321. Termination by Employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
“xxx
“c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; xxx”
Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal was elaborated in Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies and Uy, GR 191008, April 11, 2011, which was penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, viz.:
“In addition, 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 his employer. 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. Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer’s whims or caprices or suspicions; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not 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 shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer. In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized (emphasis and underscoring supplied).”
Relative thereto, there are requisites to be met to justify the imposition of dismissal, and these were enumerated in Lamadrid v. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited and Lo, GR 200658, June 23, 2021, where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, held that:
“xxx. Two requisites must be complied with to justify this ground for termination. First, the employee must be holding a position of trust, and second, the employer shall sufficiently establish the employee’s act that would justify loss of trust and confidence. xxx”
Applying the aforecited decisions in your situation, it is important to determine first if your position is one of trust and confidence, that is to say, whether you are involved in the management or policymaking decision or care and custody of the money or property of the employer. If not, then loss of trust and confidence cannot be used to terminate your employment.
From your narration, it appears that the marketing department regularly purchases plants for your employer, and you were merely tasked to handle the purchase for a specific project as a cost-saving measure. This suggests that your role does not routinely involve fiduciary duties since you are not regularly in charge of the care and custody of money and property of your employer. As such, loss of trust and confidence may not be used to terminate your employment.
Without proof that the position entails duties and responsibilities vested with greater trust and fidelity, the employee cannot be subject to loss of trust and confidence. In a similar case, the Supreme Court held that:
“xxx Based on the foregoing, the CA concluded that it is ‘safe to assume that [Angeles] is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters such as the handling and protection of the property and assets of St. Catherine.’ Absent substantial evidence that Angeles regularly handled significant amounts of St. Catherine’s money or property, this assumption is not sufficient to qualify Angeles as a fiduciary rank-and-file employee who could be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. xxx
“Similarly, Pacheco may have performed essential tasks as one of St. Catherine’s landscapers. However, such tasks are manual work that does not entail being routinely entrusted with the care and custody of money and property belonging to the employer.” (Angeles v. St. Catherine Realty Corporation, et al., GR 223582, Aug. 7, 2024, penned by Justice Jose Midas Marquez)
We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
