Digest: G.R. No. 167367: Metro Eye Security, Inc. v. Julie V. Salsona

 Metro Eye Security, Inc. v. Julie V. Salsona 

G.R. No. 167367 | September 28, 2007

Chico-Nazario, J. 

 

Facts:

Submitted for decision is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition of Metro Eye Security, Inc. for having been filed beyond the reglementary period and the Resolution of the same court denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

 

Respondent Julie Salsona (Salsona) was hired as a Security Officer beginning 4 October 1999 by the petitioner, a domestic corporation engaged as a security agency for AMA Group of Companies (AMALand).  On 11 July 2000, Salsona received a memorandum from petitioner requiring him to answer a complaint against him for allegedly working for a competitor as intelligence/investigation officer. Salsona promptly responded the next day, 12 July 2000, to the memorandum.

 

On 13 July 2000, petitioner sent another memorandum to Salsona requiring him to respond to a complaint for tampering with payroll documents and the pilferage of construction materials. Salsona also responded to the second memorandum.  On 10 August 2000, petitioner issued a third memorandum to Salsona finding him guilty of tampering with payroll documents and dismissing him based on loss of confidence. 

 

Salsona filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner with the NLRC.

 

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Salsona and rendered his dismissal illegal.

The NLRC concurred with the Labor Arbiter’s decision finding that the dismissal was illegal. It held the petitioner’s accusation that Salsona tampered with his payroll documents was without basis.  It likewise concluded that the charges against Salsona of tampering with payroll documents and pilferage of construction materials are without basis. NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 24, 2004.

 

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in the CA. However, the CA dismissed the petition for having been filed beyond the reglementary period in a resolution dated December 15 2004. Motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

 

Issue/s:

Whether or not Salsona was validly dismissed grounded loss of trust and confidence as a basis for the dismissal and complied with the substantial and procedural due process.

 

Ruling:

No, Salsona was not validly dismissed.

 

It is true that loss of trust and confidence can constitute a just and valid cause for an employee’s dismissal. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides the basis for the right of an employer to dismiss an employee based on loss of trust and confidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss.  It is sufficient that there be some basis for the same, or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the latter’s participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position.

 

Nonetheless, the right of an employer to dismiss employees on the ground of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.  Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for dismissal.

 

On the charge that Salsona inserted his name in the Daily Attendance Report when in truth he was not present at his place of assignment on that date, the Court agrees in the finding of the Labor Arbiter that the Head Guard assigned to the AMALand Detachment checked and signed Salsona’s daily time records (DTRs).  As correctly maintained by Salsona, the signature of the Head Guard on his DTR is adequate proof that the entries therein are in order and that he indeed rendered work on that date.

 

On this score, the charge of gross dishonesty against Salsona consisting in the deliberate insertion of his name in the DTR rests on feeble grounds.

 

On procedural due process, if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or an opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment.

 

Noticeably, after going over the records of this case, this Court observes that Salsona received a letter dated 11 July 2000 informing him of a complaint for allegedly working for a competitor as intelligence/investigation officer and required him to submit a written statement and explanation.  He immediately complied with the said Memorandum and submitted his explanation the next day.  Salsona again received another letter from the petitioner on 13 July 2000 informing him that a Complaint for “alleged gross dishonesty manifested by his act of tampering payroll documents and involvement in the pilferage of construction materials” was filed against him.  The second Memorandum required respondent to report to the petitioner’s Office of the Senior Manager for Human Resources the next day or on 14 July 2000.  Less than a month later, Salsona received a notice of termination.  While it is true that Salsona was afforded the opportunity to submit his written explanation on the first charge of deliberately inserting his name in the DTR submitted to the petitioner, it is likewise equally true that he did not expressly acknowledge that he committed any offense. In fact, he denied the charges against him.

 

Plain from this is that the termination of Salsona was wielded with undue haste resulting in a deprivation of due process, not allowing for a determination of just cause.

 

Salsona’s dismissal did not comply with the substantive and procedural aspects of due process thus tainting the dismissal with invalidity.  We, then, find no reason to depart from the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Salsona was illegally dismissed.