Beltran For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for
GR NO. 173774| January 30, 2012 dismissal, it must be based on a willful breach of trust and Del Castillo, J. founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: MERALCO justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: MA. LUISA BELTRAN carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. In TOPIC: addition, loss of trust and confidence must rest on Gross v. simple negligence substantial grounds and not on the employers arbitrariness, CASE SUMMARY: whims, caprices or suspicion In this case, the employer Respondent was a senior branch clerk of petitioner, failed to justify the legality of respondents dismissal. MERALCO, who failed to promptly remit a customers In this case, Beltran attributed her delay in turning over payment. This led to her termination from service. The Court Changs payment to her difficult family situation as she and held that there was no sufficient grounds to warrant her husband were having marital problems and her child respondents dismissal. The petitioner, as employer, failed to was suffering from an illness. Admittedly, she was reminded justify the legality of her respondents dismissal. For loss of of Changs payment by her supervisor on January 7, 1997 trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal, it but denied having been ordered to remit the money on that must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on day. She then reasoned that her continued delay was caused clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done by an inevitable need to take a leave of absence for her to intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable attend to the needs of her child who was suffering from excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, asthma. thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. In addition, loss To justify removal from service, the negligence should be of trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and gross and habitual. Gross negligence x x x is the want of not on the employers arbitrariness, whims, caprices or even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation suspicion In this case, the employer failed to justify the where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully legality of respondents dismissal. Moreover, tojustify and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to removal from service, the negligence should be gross and consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. habitual. Gross negligence x x x is the want of even slight Habitual neglect, on the other hand, connotes repeated care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is failure to perform ones duties for a period of time, duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and depending upon the circumstances. No concrete evidence intentionally, with a conscious indifference to was presented by MERALCO to show that Beltrans delay in consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. remitting the funds was done intentionally. Neither was it Habitual neglect, on the other hand, connotes repeated shown that same is willful, unlawful and felonious contrary failure to perform ones duties for a period of time, to MERALCOs finding as stated in the letter of termination depending upon the circumstances. No concrete evidence it sent to Beltran. Surely, Beltrans single and isolated act of was presented by MERALCO to show that Beltrans delay in negligence cannot justify her dismissal from service. remitting the funds was done intentionally. Neither was it MERALCOs termination is not commensurate to Beltrans shown that same is willful, unlawful and felonious contrary inadvertence not only because there was no clear showing of to MERALCOs finding as stated in the letter of termination bad faith and malic, but also in consideration of her it sent to Beltran. Surely, Beltrans single and isolated act of untainted record of long and dedicated service to negligence cannot justify her dismissal from service. MERALCO. FACTS: DISPOSITIVE: Beltran was employed by MERALCO as Senior Branch Clerk WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of at MERALCOs Pasig branch. Beltran receipt of Changs Appeals Decision dated November 25, 2005 and Resolution payment and issued an Auxiliary Receipt and having dated July 19, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 67960 are AFFIRMED. remitted the amount only on after her immediate supervisor, Garcia, called her attention about the payment and its non- remittance. Beltran denied having personally used the money. The investigator found Beltran guilty of misappropriating and withholding Changs payment of P15,164.48 and recommended her dismissal. Beltran filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against MERALCO. The LA regarded the penalty of dismissal as not commensurate to the degree of infraction committed as there was no adequate proof of misappropriation on the part of Beltran while the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters Decision and dismissed Beltrans complaint against MERALCO. It found that Beltran withheld company funds by failing to remit it for almost four months. The CA however reversed NLRCs ruling and reinstated the LAs. ISSUES: WON there as convincing basis to dismiss respondent from employment RULING: No. According to the Court, there was no sufficient grounds to warrant Beltrans dismissal.