Stradcom vs. Orpilla, July 2, 2018

Facts:
Joyce Anabelle L. Orpilla (respondent) was employed by Stradcom as Human Resources Administration Department (HRAD) Head and her duties include administrative and personnel, and training matters.
 
Respondent was given instructions to organize Stradcom's 2002 Christmas party. She was further instructed to include the employees of Lares, an affiliate of Stradcom. However, respondent refused to include them.
 
Respondent was then replaced as the organizer of the Christmas Party when it was discovered that the price of the food was actually P200 per head and not P250 per head as represented by respondent. Suspicious about the correct pricing, Stradcom began its investigation and interviewed some employees regarding the conduct of respondent.
 
After the investigation, Stradcom also discovered that respondent required her staff to prepare presentation/training materials/manuals using company resources for purposes not related to the affairs of the company, on overtime and on Sundays.
 
Subsequently, Pagdanganan called for a conference with respondent, and discussed respondent's non-inclusion of Lares in Stradcom's Christmas party, the overpricing of the food, and her moonlighting. Respondent made a bare denial.
 
On January 3, 2003, Chua notified his employees about the reorganization of the HRAD and the Business Operations Department.27 On the same date and as part of routine procedure, respondent turned-over the necessary documents and equipment.
 
Respondent was advised that considering her position is one that requires the trust and confidence of the management, it would be difficult to force herself on the management. Thus, respondent conveyed her willingness to resign. In view of this, Stradcom's officers agreed that any formal investigation on respondent was unnecessary in view of her willingness to resign.
 
Issue:
Whether or not respondent was validly dismissed from employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

​Held:
Yes.  Among the just causes for termination is the employer's loss of trust and confidence in its employee. Article 297 (c) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the services of an employee for fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in him/her.
 
In order for the said cause to be properly invoked, however, certain requirements must be complied with, namely: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.
 
It is undisputed that at the time of respondent's dismissal, she was holding a managerial position, which was HRAD Head of Stradcom and directly reported to the President, herein Chua and other high ranking officials of Stradcom. Likewise, respondent performed key and sensitive functions, as her duties and responsibilities included the administration, personnel and training matters of the company. Respondent held a trust and critical position which required the conscientious observance of the company rules and procedures. Thus, the first requisite is present in this case.
 
Regarding the second requisite, the acts alleged to have caused the loss of trust and confidence of the petitioners in the respondent was her mishandling of Stradcom's 2002 Christmas party, dishonesty in preparing the budget thereof, misrepresentation in her application for employment, and using company personnel and resources for purposes not beneficial to the interest of Stradcom. The evidence on record support Stradcom's claims.
 
Furthermore, respondent was proven to have engaged in moonlighting activities and used company personnel and resources for purposes not in line with the business interest of Stradcom. In fact, respondent admitted that she actually took home some of the training materials owned by the company without the latter's prior clearance and without disclosed purpose.
 
Such dishonesty on the part of the respondent in carrying out her duties is prejudicial to the interest of Stradcom and constitutes just cause to terminate her employment.
 
Based on the foregoing, the Court held that there was a just cause for respondent’s dismissal.