Loss of Trust and Confdence

Century Canning Corp., et. al. v. Ramil, GR No. 1716!, "ugust #,

$!1!

FACTS:

Petitioner Century Canning Corporation, a company engaged in canned food
manufacturing, employed respondent Vicente Randy Ramil in August 1993 as
tecnical specialist! Prior to is dismissal, is "o# included, among oters, te
preparation of te purcase re$uisition %PR& forms and capital e'penditure
%CAP()& forms, as *ell as te coordination *it te purcasing department
regarding tecnical in$uiries on needed products and ser+ices of petitioner,s
di-erent departments!

.n 3 /arc, 1999, respondent prepared a CAP() form for e'ternal fa'
modems and terminal ser+er, per order of Tecnical .perations /anager
0aime 1arcia, 0r! and endorsed it to /ari+ic Villanue+a, Secretary of ('ecuti+e
Vice2President Ricardo T! Po, for te latter,s signature! Te CAP() form,
o*e+er, did not a+e te complete details and some re$uired signatures!
Te follo*ing day, *it te form apparently signed #y Po, respondent
transmitted it to Purcasing .3cer 4orena Pa5 in Taguig /ain .3ce! Pa5
processed te paper and found tat some details in te CAP() form *ere left
#lan6! Se also dou#ted te genuineness of te signature of Po, as appearing
in te form! Pa5 ten transmitted te CAP() form to Purcasing /anager
Virgie 1arcia and informed er of te $uestiona#le signature of Po!
Conse$uently, te re$uest for te e$uipment *as put on old due to Po,s
forged signature! 7o*e+er, due to te urgency of purcasing #adly needed
e$uipment, respondent *as ordered to ma6e anoter CAP() form, *ic *as
immediately transmitted to te Purcasing 8epartment!

Suspecting im to a+e committed forgery, respondent *as as6ed to e'plain
in *riting te e+ents surrounding te incident! 7e +eemently denied any
participation in te alleged forgery! Respondent *as, tereafter, suspended
on 91 April 1999! Su#se$uently, e recei+ed a :otice of Termination from
Armando C! Ron$uillo, on 9; /ay 1999, for loss of trust and con<dence!

Respondent, on /ay 9=, 1999, <led a Complaint for illegal dismissal, non2
payment of o+ertime pay, separation pay, moral and e'emplary damages
and attorney,s fees against petitioner and its o3cers #efore te 4a#or Ar#iter
%4A&!

4A Potenciano S! Cani5ares rendered a 8ecision dismissing te complaint for
lac6 of merit! Aggrie+ed #y te 4A,s <nding, respondent appealed to te
:ational 4a#or Relations Commission %:4RC&! Te :4RC First 8i+ision in its
8ecision set aside te ruling of 4A Cani5ares! Te :4RC declared
respondent,s dismissal to #e illegal and directed petitioner to reinstate
respondent *it full #ac6*ages and seniority rigts and pri+ileges! >t found
tat petitioner failed to so* clear and con+incing e+idence tat respondent
*as responsi#le for te forgery of te signature of Po in te CAP() form!

Petitioner <led a motion for reconsideration! To respondent,s surprise and
dismay, te :4RC re+ersed itself and rendered a ne* 8ecision upolding 4A
Cani5ares, dismissal of is complaint! Respondent <led a motion for
reconsideration, *ic *as denied #y te :4RC!

Frustrated #y tis turn of e+ents, respondent <led a petition for certiorari
*it te Court of Appeals %CA&! Te CA rendered "udgment in fa+or of
respondent and reinstated te earlier decision of te :4RC! >t ordered
petitioner to reinstate respondent, *itout loss of seniority rigts and
pri+ileges, and to pay respondent full #ac6*ages from te time is
employment *as terminated up to te time of te <nality of its decision! Te
CA, li6e*ise, remanded te case to te 4A for te computation of #ac6*ages
of te respondent! 7ence, tis petition for re+ie* on certiorari!


>SS?(:

@eter or not respondent *as +alidly dismissed!


R?4>:1:
Aes!
Petitioner,s main allegation is tat tere are factual and legal grounds
constituting su#stantial proof tat respondent *as clearly in+ol+ed in te
forgery of te CAP() form! Petitioner insists tat te mere e'istence of a
#asis for #elie+ing tat respondent employee as #reaced te trust and
con<dence of is employer su3ces for is dismissal! Finally, petitioner
maintains tat aside from respondent,s in+ol+ement in te forgery of te
CAP() form, is past +iolations of company rules and regulations are more
tan su3cient grounds to "ustify is termination from employment!

7o*e+er, te record of te case is #ereft of e+idence tat *ould clearly
esta#lis Ramil,s in+ol+ement in te forgery! Tey did not e+en su#mit any
a3da+it of *itness or present any during te earing to su#stantiate teir
claim against Ramil!

Respondent alleged in is position paper tat after preparing te CAP()
form on 3 /arc 1999, e endorsed it to /ari+ic Villanue+a for te signature
of te ('ecuti+e Vice2President Ricardo T! Po! Te ne't day, respondent
recei+ed te CAP() form containing te signature of Po! Petitioner ne+er
contro+erted tese allegations in te proceedings #efore te :4RC and te
CA despite its opportunity to do so! Petitioner,s #elated allegations in its
reply <led #efore tis Court tat /ari+ic Villanue+a denied a+ing seen te
CAP() form cannot #e gi+en credit! Points of la*, teories, issues and
arguments not #rougt to te attention of te lo*er court, administrati+e
agency or $uasi2"udicial #ody need not #e considered #y a re+ie*ing court,
as tey cannot #e raised for te <rst time at tat late stage! @en a party
deli#erately adopts a certain teory and te case is decided upon tat teory
in te court #elo*, e *ill not #e permitted to cange te same on appeal,
#ecause to permit im to do so *ould #e unfair to te ad+erse party!

Tus, if respondent retrie+ed te form on /arc =, 1999 *it te signature of
Po, it can #e correctly inferred tat e is not te forger! 7ad te CAP() form
#een returned to respondent *itout Po,s signature, Villanue+a or any o3cer
of te petitioner,s company could a+e readily noticed te lac6 of signature,
and could a+e easily attested tat te form *as unsigned *en it *as
released to respondent!

Furtermore, *ile employers are allo*ed a *ider latitude of discretion in
terminating te ser+ices of employees *o perform functions *ic #y teir
nature re$uire te employers, full trust and con<dence and te mere
e'istence of #asis for #elie+ing tat te employee as #reaced te trust of
te employer is su3cient, tis does not mean tat te said #asis may #e
ar#itrary and unfounded!

Te rigt of an employer to dismiss an employee on te ground tat it as
lost its trust and con<dence in im must not #e e'ercised ar#itrarily and
*itout "ust cause! 4oss of trust and con<dence, to #e a +alid cause for
dismissal, must #e #ased on a *illful #reac of trust and founded on clearly
esta#lised facts! Te #asis for te dismissal must #e clearly and
con+incingly esta#lised, #ut proof #eyond reasona#le dou#t is not
necessary! >t must rest on su#stantial grounds and not on te employerBs
ar#itrariness, *im, caprice or suspicionC oter*ise, te employee *ould
eternally remain at te mercy of te employer!
D8( T.RR(S