Loss of confidence: Managerial Employees dismissal actually exists and established.
(Also ordered payment of 30k nominal
G.R. No. 211477 – Castillo v. CA, NLRC and Citra Mina Group
DOCTRINE
In the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required,
it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when
the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is
responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein
renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position.
FACTS
1. Dan Moreno Castillo was employed as a managerial employee (Senior Manager)
of Citra Mina Group of Companies from 2005.
2. Apr. 12, 2010 - Castillo received from CEO, a termination letter stating that his
contract will no longer be renewed by June 11, 2010 and thanking him for his
valuable contributions.
3. Castillo wrote the CEO clarifying that he had not signed any contract or agreement
that his employment would be on a contractual basis, but also stated that he did
not question the company's decision to cease his employment since this was
management's prerogative. He asked for separation pay and terminal benefits of
P853,833.
4. Apr 21, 2010 - CEO replied that they could not accede to his demands as the non-
renewal of his contract was due to loss of trust and confidence for various
serious anomalies known to him.
5. Citra Mina issued a Memorandum relieving petitioner from all his authorities and
responsibilities. Castillo then turned over his functions to another personnel.
6. April 29, 2010 - Castillo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA of Gen
San.
7. Castillo received 2 letters from management, demanding restitution of $4000
allegedly received by Castillo as a result of overpricing a contract for the
construction of the company's warehouse and the other demanding 600k allegedly
appropriated by him when he subcontracted two (2) portions of the construction
of a warehouse to a certain company at a reduced amount.
8. Jun. 16, 2010 – Citra Mina filed a complaint for estafa against Castillo alleging that
he defrauded the company in the contract of constructing a warehouse and a
building. Complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
9. In the case before LA: Citra Mina alleged that Castillo, as senior manager, held a
position of trust and confidence; and that the company suffered losses due to
anomalies in contracts entered into by Castillo.
10. Castillo alleges that he was a regular employee, he did not sign any contract
regarding his status as contractual and he was illegally dismissed for failure to
observe procedural due process
11. LA decision in favor of Castillo. Ordered payment of 1.5M as separation pay,
backwages and damages.
12. NLRC reversed and ruled in favor of Citra Mina. It found that Castillo holds a
position of trust and confidence as Senior Manager and was being held
responsible for work-connected acts. It further ruled that even if the ground for his
termination was not stated in the notice, what matters is that the just cause for
damages for violation of procedural due process.)
13. CA affirmed, hence this R65 petition.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. W/N CA erred in affirming NLRC ruling that there was no illegal dismissal? NO.
There was no GAOD by CA. There was valid dismissal.
 Since Castillo is a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for
believing that he has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his
dismissal.
 In the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
not required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of
confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable ground to
believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported
misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position.
 Citra Mina's grounds for its loss of trust and confidence in Castillo exist and
were proved by substantial evidence.
o Citra Mina presented affidavits attesting to Castillo's overpricing of
the construction contract in the form of a commission and the
subcontracting of the portions of the construction contract to another
contractor and affidavits attesting to the damages and injuries
suffered by Citra Mina from the poor installation of substandard
materials.
o These affidavits were never denied by Castillo.
 CA did not err in holding that it is immaterial that the acts constituting the
grounds of petitioner's dismissal were not included in the termination
letter.
o It is enough that the wrongdoings of petitioner were established by
sufficient evidence in the course of proceedings before the LA.
 While Castillo's termination was for a valid cause, Citra Mina failed to prove
that it accorded him procedural due process.
o Castillo was not notified of the acts or omissions for which his
dismissal was being sought. Neither was he given the opportunity to
be heard.
o He should be indemnified with nominal damages
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
CA decision affirmed.