Disproportionate penalty

This is another case where the penalty of dismissal of an employee has been considered by the court as too harsh, especially when the ground is as subjective as "loss of trust and confidence".

Felino started working in a glass factory (RAGC) on October 1, 1980. In a span of 12 years he rose from the ranks, occupying the position of supervisor then Marketing Officer II at the Company’s Fabricated Glass Division Marketing (FGDM) starting January 12, 1992. As Marketing Officer II, the bulk of Felino’s functions related to sales which required him to perform his duties away from the principal place of business of RAGC. He handled the accounts of several big car manufacturers and dealers. Sometime in 1992, Felino was offered a chance to train and qualify for the position of Assistant Manager but he declined and waived the opportunity to the one next in line since he was content with his position as marketing officer.

In July 1994, Felino’s problems with the company surfaced. The manager of FGDM and the assistant vice president of the Manpower Technical Service asked him to resign and accept a separation package, failing which he will be terminated for loss of confidence. The company claimed that this offer was to give him an opportunity for a graceful exit due to the series of irresponsible and inefficient acts. Felino on the other said it was because of his union activities.

When Felino refused to resign, he was not given work and another employee was assigned to take over his post and function. One morning a news clipping was placed on his desk regarding a job similar to his job available in the Middle East. Felino thus asked his lawyer to write RAGC on August 16, 1994 warning the latter that he will file a legal action if it did not rectify its malicious and illegal acts. In reaction to this letter, RAGC transferred Felino to another position and replied that it had finally decided to initiate disciplinary action against him in view of his irresponsibility in sending the lawyer’s letter which pre-empted management prerogative.

Then in a letter dated September 27, 1994, RAGC directed Felino to explain within 48 hours why he should not be terminated for loss of trust and confidence due to his irresponsible acts on several occasions particularly his: AWOL for 6 days in 1992; lingering unnecessarily or killing time at the customer’s place; visiting a customer only when called upon; and not attending the regular morning meetings at the FGD office. On September 28, 1994, Felino replied, denying the charges one by one and giving his explanations. But instead of setting a hearing and investigation, RAC terminated his services on September 30, 1994 for loss of trust and confidence. RAGC said that Felino’s explanation was unsatisfactory. Was RAGC correct in dismissing Felino?

No. In the first place when the employee denies the charges against him, a hearing is necessary to thresh out any doubt. The failure of RAGC to give Felino, who denied the charges against him, the benefit of a hearing and an investigation before his termination constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process. Secondly, even if all the charges set forth in the September 27, 1997 letter of RAGC are true, they are not of such nature which merits the penalty of dismissal, given Felino’s service for 14 years. Dismissal is unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges. Due to its far reaching implications, dismissal of an employee must only be for the most serious causes. Loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for dismissal was never intended to provide employers with a carte blanche for terminating employees. Such a vague, all encompassing pretext as loss of confidence, if unqualifiedly given imprimatur, could readily reduce to barren the constitutional guarantee of security tenure. The loss must be based not on ordinary breach but on willful breach. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whims, caprice or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. There must therefore be actual breach of duty committed by the employee which must be established by substantial evidence. Felino’s dismissal is therefore illegal and he must be paid full back wages and separation pay of one month salary for every year of service since reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations (Felix vs. NLRC et. al. G.R. 148256, November 17, 2004).

E-mail: [email protected]