Mere suspicion

Loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissal only if there is willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. This is illustrated in this case of Remedios.

Remedios was first hired as a college professor by a computer college (AMACC) in 1994. On May 14, 1996, she was promoted principal of the High School Department with a monthly salary of P10,000.

Barely 4 days on her new job, an incident occurred in the school that eventually led to the loss of her job. On that fateful day, Pita, the school cashier forgot inside the comfort room of the high school a brown envelope containing cash amounting to P47,299.34 which she placed on top of the toilet bowl. When she returned upon realizing that she left the envelope behind, it was already gone.

Pita reported the incident to the school authorities and told them that the only person she recalled entering the comfort room after she left was Remedios. So the school immediately ordered the investigation of both Remedios and Pita. The investigators physically inspected Remedios and searched her office but they did not find the envelope. Thereafter, the school reported the incident and brought Remedios to the Barangay Office which blottered the report. Then on May 20, 1996, the school suspended Remedios.

In several hearings and investigations conducted, Remedios submitted her explanations and complied with all notices most of which were only cancelled. Then on June 19, 1996, the School terminated the services of Remedios not because of the loss of the brown envelope, as there was no evidence proving her responsibility for such loss, but on the ground of loss of trust and confidence for having refused to extend her utmost cooperation in the investigation. Subsequently the school set aside the notice of termination and set the case for further hearing only to cancel it again.

Then on July 1, 1996, AMACC finally terminated Remedios’ employment on the same ground of loss of trust and confidence cited in the first notice of termination. Thus, Remedios filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and back wages.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) and the NLRC both ruled in favor of Remedios declaring her dismissal illegal and ordering her reinstatement with back wages. Both the LA and NLRC found that there was no material and direct evidence to show that Remedios took the envelope and neither was there evidence to support the loss of trust and confidence on Remedios aside from the bare allegations of the school. Were the LA and NLRC correct?

Yes. The loss of trust and confidence on Remedios is not founded on facts established by substantial and competent evidence. Loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of trust that is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely without justifiable cause. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicions. Otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.

In this case, Remedios was initially investigated as one of the primary suspects for the loss of the P47,299.34. When it became clear that she was not liable for it, the school changed their charge and accused her of exhibiting a belligerent attitude during the investigation. Remedios however cooperated with the investigation. She voluntarily complied with the written notices requiring her to file her written explanation and to appear at the hearing. She may have shown her exasperation through her written explanation but this is not sufficient for the school to lose their trust and confidence in her. The sudden shift by the school authorities of the ground for terminating the services of Remedios only reinforces the conviction that there was no basis in the first place to her suspect of any infraction. She could not, in any credible way be connected with the loss of an envelope with cash left by the cashier. So Remedios should be immediately reinstated to her former or substantially equal position with back wages from her illegal termination until reinstated. The school should also pay her P100,000 moral damages and P50,000 exemplary damages (AMA Computer College Inc. et. al. vs. Garay G.R. 162468, January 23, 2007).

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]