"When an employee agrees to hold or occupy a position requiring full trust and confidence, he gives up some of the rigid guarantees available to ordinary employees. Consequently, infractions which, if committed by others, might be overlooked or condoned may be penalized with a more severe disciplinary action precisely because of the special trust and confidence given to the employee. A company's resort to self-defense, in the form of termination, would then be more easily justified."
The foregoing doctrine was recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Pilien vs. Pascasio, G.R. No. 242450, 6 March 2019, where it denied the petition for certiorari filed by the dismissed employee based on the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The employee here was previously a rank-and-file employee who was promoted as a cashier of a restuarant. One day, the employee was directed to explain in writing why cash sales of the restaurant amounting to Php 700.00 pesos was found in her possession but was not recorded or reported.
It appears that the employee admitted the charged, aplogized, accounted for the money, and promised not to commit the said act again. Subsequently, however, she was charged with three (3) other instances of cashiering irregularities and was placed on preventive suspension because of it. The employee admitted two of the three charges against her.
Because her explanations were found unsatisfactory, the employer decided to dismiss the employee. Charges were brought before the NLRC, and the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employee, finding the presence of illegal dismissal.
The NLRC, upon review, reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and held that dismissal was for valid reasons, albeit incorrectly done.
Unable to accept the decision of the NLRC, the employee brought her case to the Supreme Court, which then denied her petition, as mentioned.
In denying her petition, the Supreme Court explained that the employee's subsequent act of accounting for the restaurant money is of no moment. Since the employee concerned occupies a position of trust and confidence, the High Court held that the employer is justified in dismissing her from employment, as an act of self-defense, and based on substantial evidence showing breach of trust. So here, in other words, even if the employee did not take the money but returned and even accounted for it after being caught, the Supreme Court held that it was enough reason for the employer to lose trust and confidence in her and dismiss her from employment - as all employees who occupy positions requiring full trust and confidence may be dismissed from employment even on the "first substantiated instance of misconduct."
The foregoing doctrine was recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Pilien vs. Pascasio, G.R. No. 242450, 6 March 2019, where it denied the petition for certiorari filed by the dismissed employee based on the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The employee here was previously a rank-and-file employee who was promoted as a cashier of a restuarant. One day, the employee was directed to explain in writing why cash sales of the restaurant amounting to Php 700.00 pesos was found in her possession but was not recorded or reported.
It appears that the employee admitted the charged, aplogized, accounted for the money, and promised not to commit the said act again. Subsequently, however, she was charged with three (3) other instances of cashiering irregularities and was placed on preventive suspension because of it. The employee admitted two of the three charges against her.
Because her explanations were found unsatisfactory, the employer decided to dismiss the employee. Charges were brought before the NLRC, and the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employee, finding the presence of illegal dismissal.
The NLRC, upon review, reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and held that dismissal was for valid reasons, albeit incorrectly done.
Unable to accept the decision of the NLRC, the employee brought her case to the Supreme Court, which then denied her petition, as mentioned.
In denying her petition, the Supreme Court explained that the employee's subsequent act of accounting for the restaurant money is of no moment. Since the employee concerned occupies a position of trust and confidence, the High Court held that the employer is justified in dismissing her from employment, as an act of self-defense, and based on substantial evidence showing breach of trust. So here, in other words, even if the employee did not take the money but returned and even accounted for it after being caught, the Supreme Court held that it was enough reason for the employer to lose trust and confidence in her and dismiss her from employment - as all employees who occupy positions requiring full trust and confidence may be dismissed from employment even on the "first substantiated instance of misconduct."
(Aaron Jarveen O. Ho is the Managing Partner of HG Law and specializes in Labor and Employment Law, as well as Litigation and Dispute Resolution Matters. For questions or concerns, Atty. Ho may be reached through his e-mail address at aoho@hglaw.ph)