58.) Mapili v Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.
co-employee and that it was his third offense, justified his
DOCTRINE​​:
● While a penalty may no longer be imposed on offenses
for which the employee has already been punished,
those infractions are still relevant and may be used as
justification for an employee’s dismissal
FACTS​​:
Petitioner, Jerry Mapili, as bus conductor while on duty
was caught by PRBLI's field inspector extending a free ride to
a lady passenger who boarded at ​Barangay Magtaking,
Labrador, Pangasinan. Consequently, petitioner was
preventively suspended and was directed to appear in an
administrative investigation. Thereafter, a formal hearing was
conducted during which petitioner was given an opportunity to
present and explain his side. Consequently, through a
memorandum that petitioner was terminated from employment
for committing a serious irregularity by extending a free ride to
a passenger in violation of company rules. Petitioner filed with
the NLRC a Complaint for illegal dismissal against PRBLI,
Nisce, and Ricardo Paras (Paras), PRBLI's General
Manager.Petitioner alleged that his employment was
terminated without cause and due process. He argued that
the infraction was only trivial. He argued that his two previous
violations of the same company regulation cannot be
considered in the imposition of the penalty of dismissal since
those previous infractions were not too serious and are not
sufficient to merit the penalty of dismissal.Respondents argued
that petitioner's admissions during the investigation that he
indeed offered a free ride out of gratitude to the wife of his
termination considering that his position is imbued with trust
and confidence. The Labor Arbiter ordered that the Mapili be
reinstated to his former position. Upon appeal, NLRC held that
petitioner’s dismissal was for just cause and petitioner’s past
record of similar infractions do not merit the compassion of
law.
ISSUES:
Whether or not past similar infractions for which an
employee has already suffered the corresponding penalty
can be used as justification for the employee’s dismissal
from service
HELD:
YES. Petitioner's position is imbued with trust and
confidence because it involves handling of money and failure
to collect the proper fare from the riding public constitutes a
grave offense which justifies his dismissal. Moreover,
petitioner's series of irregularities when put together may
constitute serious misconduct. As petitioner's employment
record shows, this is not the first time that petitioner refused
to collect fares from passengers. In fact, this is already the
third instance that he failed to collect fares from the riding
public. Although petitioner already suffered the corresponding
penalties for his past misconduct, those infractions are still
relevant and may be considered in assessing his liability for
his present infraction. THese are relevant in assessing private
respondent's liability for the present violation for the purpose of
determining the appropriate penalty. To sustain private
respondent's argument that the past violation should not be
considered is to disregard the warnings previously issued to
him.
59.) Century Iron Works, Inc. v Banas
DOCTRINE:
● Loss of confidence applies to: (1) employees
occupying positions of trust and confidence, the
managerial employees; and (2) employees who are
routinely charged with the care and custody of the
employer’s money or property which may include
rank-and-file employees.
FACTS:
Bañas worked as an inventory comptroller. Century
Iron received letters of complaint from its gas suppliers
regarding alleged massive shortage of empty gas cylinders In
the investigation that Century Iron conducted in response to
the letters, it found that Bañas failed to make a report of the
missing cylinders. Century Iron required Bañas to explain
within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt of its letter why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him for loss of trust
and confidence and for gross and habitual neglect of duty,
Century Iron issued a Memorandum requiring Bañas to attend
a hearing regarding the missing cylinders. ​Century Iron
terminated Bañas’ services on grounds of loss of trust and
confidence, and habitual and gross neglect of duty. Bañas
alleged that he merely worked as an inventory clerk who is not
responsible for the lost cylinders. He pointed out that his tasks
were limited to conducting periodic and yearly inventories, and
submitting his findings to the personnel officer. Therefore, he
cannot be terminated on the ground of loss of confidence.
Petitioners asserted that Bañas was a supervisory employee
who was responsible for the lost cylinders. They maintained
that Bañas committed numerous infractions during his tenure
amounting to gross and habitual neglect of duty. These
included absences without leave, unauthorized undertime,
failure to implement proper standard warehousing and
housekeeping procedure, negligence in making inventories of
materials, and failure to ensure sufficient supplies of
oxygen-acetylene gases. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Banas
was illegally dismissed. Upon appeal, NLRC affirmed LA’s
ruling and ruled that Banas was only an inventory clerk. The
Court of Appeals agreed with the lower tribunals that Banas
was an inventory clerk but was afforded due process.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not loss of confidence is a ground for
terminating a rank-and-file employee who is not
routinely charged with the care and custody of the
employer’s money or property (NO)
2. Whether or not Bañas was grossly and habitually
neglectful of his duties. (YES)
HELD:
1.)N​​O. Bañas did not occupy a position of trust and
confidence nor was he routinely in charge with the care and
custody of Century Iron’s money or property, his termination
on the ground of loss of confidence was misplaced. Loss of
confidence applies to: (1) employees occupying positions of
trust and confidence, the managerial employees; and (2)
employees who are routinely charged with the care and
custody of the employer’s money or property which may
include rank-and-file employees
2.) YES. ​Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that
one of the just causes for terminating an employment is
the employee’s gross and habitual neglect of his
duties. This cause includes gross inefficiency,
negligence and carelessness. ​Gross negligence
connotes want or absence of or failure to exercise
slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It
evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences
without exerting any effort to avoid them. Fraud and
willful neglect of duties imply bad faith of the employee
in failing to perform his job, to the detriment of the
employer and the latter’s business. Habitual neglect,
on the other hand, implies repeated failure to perform
one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the
circumstances.
Evidence on record shows that Bañas
committed numerous infractions during his stay in
Century iron such as failing to check the right quantity
of materials subject of his inventory, undertaking
undertime, incurring an absence without asking for
prior leave, failing to implement proper warehousing
and housekeeping procedures, failing to ensure
sufficient supplies of oxygen-acetylene gases during
business hours, failing to secure prior permission
before going on leave. such numerous infractions are
sufficient to hold him grossly and habitually negligent.
His repeated negligence is not tolerable. The totality of
infractions or the number of violations he committed
during his employment merits his dismissal.
60.) Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v Carilla
DOCTRINE:
● In termination cases, the burden of proof rests
upon the employer to show that the dismissal of
the employee is for just cause and failure to do
so would mean that the dismissal is not
justified.
● It is well settled in this jurisdiction that
confidential and managerial employees cannot
be arbitrarily dismissed at any time, and without
cause as reasonably established in an
appropriate investigation.The captain of a
vessel is a confidential and managerial
employee within the meaning of this doctrine.
FACTS:
Felicisimo Carilla was hired by petitioner, a
manning agent, in behalf of its principal, Anglo-Eastern
Shipmanagement Ltd., to work as Master on board ​MV
Handy-Cam Azobe for twelve months. On November 29, 1993,
respondent boarded the vessel. On June 6, 1994,respondent
was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines. respondent
filed with the Philippine Overseas and Employment Agency
(POEA) a complaint for illegal dismissal and alleged that he
was dismissed without notice and hearing and without any
valid reason. Petitioner contended that respondent's
termination was for cause; he failed to take the necessary
steps to ensure the safety of the vessel and its cargo causing
petitioner to incur a huge amount of damages on cargo claims
and vessel repairs.Furthermore, the fact that respondent was
warned of his lapses, he had not shown any improvement
which forced petitioner to dismiss and replace him with a
competent one. Thus, respondent's incompetence is therefore
penalized with dismissal. The Labor Arbiter rendered decision
in favor of Carilla and ruled that his dismissal is illegal and
ordered the petitioner to pay the unexpired portion of the
contract. Upon appeal, NLRC dismissed the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Carilla was illegally dismissed
(YES)
HELD:
YES. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that confidential
and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at
any time, and without cause as reasonably established in an
appropriate investigation. Such employees, too, are entitled to
security of tenure, fair standards of employment and the
protection of labor laws.Managerial employees, no less than
rank-and-file laborers, are entitled to due process.The captain
of a vessel is a confidential and managerial employee within
the meaning of this doctrine. dismissal is not justified. A
dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of
the charges leveled against him by his employer.The
determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause
must be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after
observing due process. petitioner's documents were not
authenticated and, hence, were self-serving and unreliable. It
appears from the Logs of Events During Capt. Carilla
Command that it is merely a typewritten enumeration of
several alleged incidents of damages to the cargoes and to the
vessel, but it does not state the source and who prepared the
same. There is no way of verifying the truth of these entries,
and if they were actually recorded in the vessel logbook on the
dates the alleged incidents took place. Thus, respondent was
illegally dismissed as he was not accorded a fair investigation
as required by law and the ground invoked for his dismissal
was not proven.
PROCEDURE TO TERMINATE
18.) Dela Cruz v NLRC
DOCTRINE:
● A lay-off, used interchangeably with
retrenchment, is a recognized prerogative of
management. It is the termination of
employment resorted to by the employer,
through no fault of nor with prejudice to the
employees, during periods of business
recession, industrial depression, seasonal
fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack
of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of
the plant for a new production program, or the
introduction of new methods or more efficient
machinery, or of automation.
● The term trust and confidence is restricted to
managerial class of employees.

FACTS:
Petitioner Gloria de la Cruz was assigned at the
Production Department in the respondent company where she
was in charge of printing the product codes, labels and foils of
the company products. In a management meeting, the
employees were informed that due to heavy volume of work,
availment of vacation leaves was being temporarily suspended
and sick leaves could be availed of only if the sickness or
injury occurred within company premises. Despite the above
directive, petitioner went on sick leave. When petitioner
reported to work, she was barred from entering and was
handed a memorandum apprising her of temporary lay-off
allegedly due to continuous brownouts. When petitioner
resumed her normal work, her immediate supervisor accosted
her why she was keeping her folding umbrella in a bag marked
Pliva, which was exclusively used in packaging Pliva products
being manufactured by respondent Company for a foreign
client. In the course of the administrative investigation,
petitioner was placed under preventive suspension. When the
investigation was completed, respondent Company terminated
the services of petitioner, for violating the Company Code of
Discipline, specifically the provision on dishonesty. Petitioner
filed a complaint for illegal temporary lay-off and illegal
dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioner’s
complaint and ruled that there was sufficient cause for the
dismissal. Upon appeal, NLRC affirmed the decision but not
on the ground of dishonesty but fors unauthorized possession
of company property.
ISSUE​​:
1. Whether or not the temporary layoff of
Gloria dela Cruz was valid (NO)
2. Whether or not the dismissal of Gloria dela
Cruz was valid (NO)
HELD:
1. NO. ​A lay-off, used interchangeably with
retrenchment, is a recognized prerogative of
management. It is the termination of
employment resorted to by the employer,
through no fault of nor with prejudice to the
employees, during periods of business
recession, industrial depression, seasonal
fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack
of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of
the plant for a new production program, or the
introduction of new methods or more efficient
machinery, or of automation. The requisites of a
valid retrenchment are covered by Article 283 of
the Labor Code. hen a lay-off is temporary, the
employment status of the employee is not
deemed terminated, but merely suspended.
Article 286 of the Labor Code provides, in part,
that the ​bona fide suspension of the operation
of the business or undertaking for a period not
exceeding six months does not terminate
employment. The standard then by which to
judge the validity of the exercise of this aspect
of management prerogative is ​good faith​. The
 Court held that at the program was but a
camouflage of the true reason or intention of
the company to eventually rid petitioner from
the service. Indeed, if there was need to
temporarily lay-off to save on costs due to the
brownouts, this Court cannot understand why,
first, the private respondents disallowed, due to
heavy volume of work, the availment of
vacation and sick leaves unless the sickness or
injury occurred inside company premises; and
second, only the petitioner out of more than 100
employees was laid-off. These alone showed
beyond cavil that the so-called cost-saving
program was nothing but a sham and contrived
as a belated defense.
2. NO. ​In termination cases, the burden of proving
just and valid cause for dismissing an employee
from his employment rests upon the employer,
and the latters failure to do so results in a
finding that the dismissal is unjustified. This rule
is designed to give flesh and blood to the
guaranty of security of tenure granted the
employees by the Constitution ​and the Labor
Code. In this case, the private respondents
could only rely on the perceived conflicting
explanations of the petitioner as to how she
came into possession of the Pliva bag. The
error in choice can by no means be deemed
dishonesty nor as breach of trust and
confidence. settled that an employer may
terminate the services of an employee due to
loss of trust and confidence. However, the loss
must be based not on ordinary breach by the
latter of the trust reposed in him by the former,
but, in the language of Article 283[c] of the
Labor Code, on willful breach. A 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.
Elsewise stated, it must rest on substantial
grounds and not on the employers arbitrariness,
whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the
employee would eternally remain at the mercy
of the employer. It should be genuine and not
simulated; nor should it appear as a mere
afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad
faith or a subterfuge for causes which are
improper, illegal or unjustified. It has never
been intended to afford an occasion for abuse
because of its subjective nature. There must,
therefore, be an actual breach of duty
committed by the employee which must be
established by substantial evidence. The
possession and use of the Pliva bag cannot be
considered as an act of dishonesty. it was then
error for the Labor Arbiter to consider it as such
and to make it a basis for loss of trust and
confidence. Besides, it was not shown that the
petitioner was a ​managerial employee of the
private respondents, the term trust and
confidence being restricted to said class of
employees