Ventura v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romeo N. Ventura was hired as Field Auditor by Genuino Ice Co., Inc. in April 1987. In August 2004, he learned from an employee that his nephew, Lilio Lejos, an employee of the company, was involved in the theft of company properties. Lejos resigned on September 24, 2004. On November 4, 2004, petitioner submitted Lejos' affidavit implicating co-employees in theft and his own Partial Audit Report stating Lejos revealed the theft on October 28, 2004. On November 22, 2004, petitioner received a Notice of Preventive Suspension for failure to report the theft despite prior knowledge, charged with suppression of evidence and withholding information, constituting a serious violation and breach of trust. He was suspended for 30 days and directed to explain why he should not be terminated. Procedural History: Petitioner submitted a sworn explanation denying violation and claiming he reported the matter to his superior, Alejandro Barrera, but did not want to join the investigation due to kinship. He stated he brought Lejos to the Personnel Manager and submitted Lejos' affidavit. He argued preventive suspension was harsh and he did not participate in the theft. Barrera denied being informed by petitioner, stating he would have ordered surveillance. Barrera also noted the Partial Audit Report lacked his signature. On December 20, 2004, petitioner was terminated for concealing information and willful breach of trust, with a case filed against him as an accessory to theft. Petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring illegal dismissal. The NLRC reversed the LA, but ordered payment of 13th month pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, finding termination for valid cause and with due process. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing the CA erred in ruling he was dismissed for cause, that due process was observed, and that his length of service was not considered. He contended respondents failed to prove just cause for dismissal and that the notices did not satisfy due process requirements, as no hearing was conducted.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was terminated for a just cause. Whether petitioner was accorded due process.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Court finds no reversible error to disturb the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner was terminated for a just cause: The Court ruled in the affirmative. Article 282(c) of the Labor Code provides that loss of trust and confidence is a just cause for dismissal, especially for employees entrusted with delicate duties like an Auditor. The Court found substantial and irreconcilable inconsistencies in petitioner's narration of facts between his Audit Report and his sworn explanation, and his pleadings. Specifically, petitioner averred he learned of the illegal activities in August 2004 from Alido, but his Partial Audit Report stated he discovered the illegal activities on October 28, 2004, after Lejos' resignation, and upon Lejos' initiative. This withholding of information from his supervisor and the company constituted a clear breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him as an Auditor. The inconsistencies themselves formed the basis for his termination. On the issue of whether petitioner was accorded due process: The Court ruled in the affirmative. The employer must furnish two written notices: (a) a notice specifying the ground(s) for termination and giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to explain, and (b) a notice of termination indicating that grounds have been established. The basic requirement is to inform the employee of the charges and hear their side, which can be done through pleadings or written explanations, not necessarily a full adversarial proceeding. In this case, petitioner was served a Notice of Preventive Suspension on November 22, 2004, apprising him of the alleged infraction and requiring an explanation within two days. He submitted his written explanation the following day. Subsequently, he was furnished a notice of termination. This sequence of events complied with the requirements of due process.
Main Doctrine
An employee entrusted with duties of confidence, such as an Auditor, can be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence if found to have committed a willful breach of trust, provided due process is observed. The employer must furnish two written notices: one specifying the grounds for termination and giving the employee an opportunity to explain, and another indicating that grounds have been established to justify termination.