AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Zenaida R. Garay was hired by AMA Computer College, Inc. (AMACC) as a College Instructor in 1994 and was promoted to Principal of the High School Department in 1996. On May 17, 1996, P47,299.34 in cash, contained in a brown envelope, disappeared from a comfort room. The cashier, Sarah Pechardo, reported the incident and identified Garay as the only other person she recalled entering the comfort room after her. AMACC conducted an investigation, including a physical inspection of Garay and a search of her office, but the envelope was not found. Garay was subsequently brought to the barangay office, and the incident was blottered. On May 20, 1996, Garay was preventively suspended. AMACC issued notices for Garay to appear and submit explanations, but hearings were repeatedly cancelled. On June 19, 1996, AMACC terminated Garay's employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. A subsequent notice for a hearing was issued, and the first termination notice was set aside. However, on July 1, 1996, Garay was again terminated on the same ground. Procedural History: Garay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Garay's termination was based on mere suspicion, finding no material or direct evidence that she took the money. The Labor Arbiter concluded that Garay was terminated without just cause and ordered reinstatement with backwages, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, modifying only the computation of backwages to include 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC noted that Garay was initially suspected of theft but, upon lack of evidence, was charged with refusing to cooperate, leading to loss of trust and confidence, which the NLRC found unsupported by evidence. The Court of Appeals denied AMACC's petition for certiorari and motion for reconsideration. The Petition: AMACC filed a petition for review on certiorari, raising issues regarding alleged errors of law and factual misapprehensions by the Court of Appeals, and grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed errors of law correctible by a petition for review on certiorari, misapprehended the factual findings of the case, or committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed order and resolution. Whether the loss of trust and confidence in Garay was founded on facts established by substantial and competent evidence.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The August 21, 2003 Decision and the January 16, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 59689, are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed errors of law, misapprehended facts, or committed grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were fundamentally raising a question of fact regarding the appellate court's finding that the loss of trust and confidence was not substantially proved. This involves a factual inquiry, which is the statutory function of the NLRC and outside the normal scope of a petition for review. The Court reiterated the rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, when coinciding with those of the Labor Arbiter and supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. In this case, the tribunals consistently found that Garay's termination was without valid legal cause, and there was no basis to deviate from this doctrine without a clear showing of lack of substantiation. On the issue of whether the loss of trust and confidence was founded on facts established by substantial and competent evidence: The Court emphasized that for loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal, it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A willful breach is one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as opposed to an act done carelessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds, not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices, or suspicion, to prevent employees from being perpetually at the mercy of employers. The Court noted that Garay was initially a suspect for the loss of money. However, when the investigation revealed no evidence of her liability, the charge shifted to her alleged refusal to cooperate, leading to loss of trust and confidence. The records showed Garay's cooperation, including her compliance with notices to file explanations and appear at hearings. While she may have expressed exasperation, the Court found this insufficient to justify the loss of trust and confidence. The sudden shift in the grounds for termination reinforced the Court's conviction that there was no initial basis to suspect Garay of any infraction, and she could not be credibly connected with the loss of the envelope containing cash.
Main Doctrine
Loss of trust and confidence, as a ground for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts, and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices, or suspicion. The employer bears the burden of proving such willful breach with substantial evidence.