Auxilio, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Porfirio Auxilio, Jr. was employed by Baguio Country Club Corporation. On January 17, 1982, P15,000.00 went missing from the cashier's office. A police investigation ruled out robbery and concluded it was an "inside job." Petitioner, along with other employees with access to the office, was questioned and subjected to a polygraph examination. Petitioner was placed under preventive suspension on January 20, 1982. Procedural History: The polygraph examination results indicated that petitioner could not fully explain his answers regarding the missing money. He refused to attend further investigation, citing illness during the polygraph test. Notices sent to his residence were rejected by his wife. Consequently, on February 20, 1982, petitioner was terminated for "loss of trust and confidence" and "giving false statement during official investigation." Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging dismissal on mere suspicion and denial of due process under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Labor Arbiter ordered reinstatement, finding no reasonable ground for dismissal. The NLRC reversed this, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the NLRC decision, claiming denial of due process due to non-observance of the CBA's grievance procedure and arguing that his dismissal was illegal as it was based on suspicion and polygraph results rejected by the Labor Arbiter.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was denied due process of law. Whether the dismissal of petitioner was legal and valid based on loss of trust and confidence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of due process: The Court found that petitioner was afforded due process. While the grievance machinery provisions of the CBA were invoked by the petitioner, the Court noted that the enumerated instances for its availment were not present in this case. More importantly, petitioner was repeatedly invited for further investigation but chose to ignore these notices, with his wife refusing to receive them. This "convenient absence" and refusal to participate in further inquiries meant that petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard, and his subsequent complaint of denial of due process was unavailing as he unjustifiably rejected the opportunity. The employer cannot be faulted for the petitioner's failure to defend himself when he deliberately avoided the process. On the issue of the legality and validity of dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence: The Court held that loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissal. It is sufficient that there is some basis or reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct, and that his participation renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. In this case, petitioner had access to the cashier's office, and his erratic reaction to questioning, coupled with his subsequent disappearance and refusal to attend further investigation, implied flight associated with guilt. The totality of the evidence, including the police investigation and the polygraph results, provided a sufficient basis for the employer to lose trust and confidence in the petitioner, justifying his dismissal as a measure of self-protection.
Main Doctrine
An employee may be dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence if there is some basis or reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for misconduct, even if guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The employer is not required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but only to show that the employer has reasonable grounds to believe the employee is responsible for the misconduct, and that such participation renders the employee unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. Failure to appear for further investigation despite notice, when coupled with other circumstances, may imply flight associated with guilt.