G.R. No. 82511 March 3, 1992GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION vs.

NLRC and IMELDA SALAZAR EN BANC ROMERO, J.: FACTS: Imelda L. Salazar was employed as general system analyst at GMCR. Delfin Saldivar, with whom shewas allegedly very close, was also employed as manager for technical operations'.When reports that company equipment and spare parts worth thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar were missing, GMCR made an investigation of the latter's activities. The report of the company's internal auditor,Mr. Agustin Maramara, indicated that Saldivar had entered into a partnership styled Concave Commercial andIndustrial Company with Richard A. Yambao, owner and manager of Elecon Engineering Services (Elecon), asupplier of petitioner often recommended by Saldivar. It also disclosed that Saldivar had taken petitioner'smissing Fedders airconditioning unit for his own personal use without authorization and also connived withYambao to defraud petitioner of its property. The air conditioner was recovered only after petitioner GMCR filedan action for replevin against Saldivar. It likewise appeared in the course of Maramara's investigation that ImeldaSalazar violated company regulations by involving herself in transactions conflicting with the company's interestsby signing as a witness to the articles of said partnership and that she had full knowledge of the loss andwhereabouts of the airconditioner but failed to inform her employer.The company placed Salazar under preventive suspension for one month giving her 30 days within which to,explain her side. But instead of submitting an explanation, she filed a complaint against petitioner for illegalsuspension, which she subsequently amended to include illegal dismissal, vacation and sick leave benefits, 13thmonth pay and damages, after petitioner notified her in writing that she was considered dismissed "in view of inability to refute and disprove the findings. The Labor Arbiter ordered GMCR to reinstate Salazar to her former or equivalent position and to pay her fullbackwages and other benefits she would have received were it not for the illegal dismissal including payment of moral damages. On appeal, NLRC affirmed the aforesaid decision with respect to the reinstatement but limitedthe backwages to a period of two (2) years and deleted the award for moral damages. ISSUE: WON the Labor Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the suspension andsubsequent dismissal of private respondent were illegal and in ordering her reinstatement with two (2)years' backwages. HELD: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION WAS LAWFUL . Preventive suspension does not signify that the companyhas adjudged the employee guilty of the charges she was asked to answer and explain. Suchdisciplinary measure is resorted to for the protection of the company's property pending investigationany alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee . GMCR had not violated Salazar'sright to due process when she was promptly suspended. If at all, the fault, lay with private respondent when sheignored petitioner's "giving her ample opportunity to present (her) side to the Management." Instead, she wentdirectly to the Labor Department and filed her complaint for illegal suspension without giving her employer achance to evaluate her side of the controversy. SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT WAS NOT FOR CAUSE . While loss of confidence or breach of trust is avalid ground for terminations it must rest on some basis which must be convincingly established. An employeeshould not be dismissed on mere presumptions and suppositions. GMCR "presumed reasonably thatcomplainant's sympathy would be with Saldivar" and its averment that Saldivar's investigation althoughunverified, was probably true, do not pass this Court's test. While we should not condone the acts ofdisloyalty of an employee, neither should we dismiss him on the basis of suspicion derived fromspeculative inferences. The report merely insinuated that in view of Salazar's special relationship with Saldivar,she might have had direct knowledge of Saldivar's questionable activities. Direct evidence implicating privaterespondent is wanting from the records. Also, the report is one sided since it came out after Saldivar had already resigned and he does not have theopportunity to refute management's findings. Since the main evidence dealt principally on the alleged culpabilityof Saldivar and without having had a chance to voice his, stringent examination should have been carried out toascertain if there existed independent legal grounds to hold Salazar answerable as well and, thereby, justify her dismissal. REMEDY IN LAW TO RECTIFY AN UNLAWFUL DISMISSAL.