MERALCO V.
NLRC (A) FACTS:
FACTS:
Private respondent Signo was employed as supervisor-leadman.
In 1981, a certain Fernando de Lara filed an application with the petitioner company for electrical
services at his residence at Peafrancia Subdivision, Marcos Highway, Antipolo, Rizal. Private
respondent Signo facilitated the processing of the said application.
It was established that the area where the residence of de Lara was located is not yet within the
serviceable point of Meralco, because the place was beyond the 30-meter distance from the nearest
existing Meralco facilities. In order to expedite the electrical connections at de Lara's residence, certain
employees of the company, including respondent Signo, made it appear in the application that the sari-
sari store at the corner of Marcos Highway, an entrance to the subdivision, is applicant de Lara's
establishment, which, in reality is not owned by the latter.
As a result of this scheme, the electrical connections to de Lara's residence were installed and made
possible. However, due to the fault of the Power Sales Division of petitioner company, Fernando de
Lara was not billed for more than a year.
Petitioner company conducted an investigation of the matter and found respondent Signo responsible
for the said irregularities in the installation. Thus, the services of the latter were terminated on May 18,
1983.
Labor Arbiter: While considering that complainant indeed committed the above-cited infractions of
company Code of Employee Discipline, We shall also consider his records of uninterrupted twenty (20)
years of service coupled with two (2) commendations for honesty. Likewise, We shall take note that
subject offense is his first, and therefore, to impose the extreme penalty of dismissal is certainly too
drastic.
NLRC: Affirmed
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Signo should be dismissed from petitioner company on grounds of serious
misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
HELD:
The power to dismiss is the normal prerogative of the employer. An employer, generally, can dismiss or
lay-off an employee for just and authorized causes enumerated under Articles 282 and 283 of the Labor
Code. However, the right of an employer to freely discharge his employees is subject to regulation by
the State, basically in the exercise of its paramount police power. This is so because the preservation of
the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State, more vital than the preservation of corporate profits.
There is no question that herein respondent Signo is guilty of breach of trust and violation of company
rules. However, as earlier stated, the respondent Commission and the Labor Arbiter found that
dismissal should not be meted to respondent Signo. If ever the petitioner suffered losses resulting from
the unlisted electric consumption of de Lara, this was found to be the fault of petitioner's Power Sales
Division.
We find no reason to disturb these findings. Well-established is the principle that findings of
administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. Judicial review by this Court on labor
cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor
officer or office based his or its determination but is limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion.
JAMER V. NLRC (A)
Complainant, Corazon Jamer was employed as a Cashier at Joy Mart, a sister company of Isetann. She
was later on promoted to the position of counter supervisor.
Complainant Cristina Amortizado, on the other hand, was employed also at Joy Martas a sales clerk. In
1980 she was promoted to the position as counter cashier.
On July 16, 1990, complainants discovered a shortage of P15,353.78. It was complainant Corazon
Jamer who first discovered the shortage. In fact at first, she thought that it was merely a P1,000.00
shortage but when she reconciled the cash receipts, from the cash register counters, with the tally sheets
and the actual money on hand, the shortage amounted to P15,353.78. She informed her co-store cashier,
complainant Cristina Amortizado, about the shortage. Cristina Amortizado also reconciled and re-
counted the sale previous to July 16, 1990 and she also confirmed that there was a discrepancy or a
shortage of P15,353.78.. They did not, (sic) immediately report the shortage to management hoping to
find the cause of the shortage but to no avail they failed to reconcile the same. Hence, they had no other
alternative but to report the same to the management on July 17, 1990.
Respondents placed both complainants and their co-store cashier Lutgarda Inducta under
preventive suspension for the alleged shortages. Thereafter, respondents conducted an administrative
investigation. Finding the explanation of the complainants to be unsatisfactory, respondent dismissed
the complainants from the service on August 31, 1990.
Labor Arbiter: Finding the dismissal of complainants, Cristina Amortizado and Corazon Jamer to be
illegal and concomitantly.
NLRC: Reversed
ISSUE:
Whether NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioners were validly dismissed
on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
HELD:
Under the Labor Code, as amended, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee by his
employer are two-fold: the substantive and the procedural. Not only must the dismissal be for a valid or
authorized cause as provided by law (Articles 282, 283 and 284, of the Labor Code, as amended), but
the rudimentary requirements of due process, basic of which are the opportunity to be heard and to
defend himself, must be observed before an employee may be dismissed.
First, it must pointed out that the petitioners remark that there was laxity in the accounting procedures
of the company is a matter addressed to the respondent employer. However, this does not excuse
dishonesty of employees and should not in any case hamper the right of the employer to terminate the
employment of petitioners on the ground of loss of confidence or breach of trust. Precisely, the
accounting procedure which called for improvements was based primarily on trust and confidence.
Secondly, it must be noted that the herein petitioners were store cashiers and as such, a special and
unique employment relationship exists between them and the respondent company. More than most key
positions, that of cashier calls for the utmost trust and confidence because their primary function
involves basically the handling of a highly essential property of the respondent employer.
We reiterate the rule that in cases of dismissal for breach of trust and confidence, proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the employees misconduct is not required. It is sufficient that the employer had
reasonable ground to believe that the employees are responsible for the misconduct which renders him
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by their position. [40] In the case at hand, it cannot be
doubted that respondents succeeded in discharging its burden of proof.