Lua v. Bensing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Laarne C. Bensing was employed by Kimwa Construction & Development Corporation (Kimwa) as a liaison officer. Kimwa also operated Leo's Restaurant and Bar Cafe (Restobar) and Mountain Suite Business Apartelle (Apartelle). Respondent was appointed Administrative Officer/Human Resource (HR) Head of these establishments. Respondent was asked to explain circumstances surrounding an agreement between the Restobar and Pepsi Products Philippines, Inc. (Pepsi), and benefits she derived therefrom, with accusations of signing the contract without authority and not informing management of benefits. Respondent explained that she had verbal authorization from Leo Y. Lua, Manager of the Restobar and Apartelle, to sign the contract in the presence of Pepsi's Sales Manager. She denied receiving personal benefits and stated that the Restobar received only a portion of the donated soft drinks. Further memoranda were issued regarding alleged dishonesty in charging food expenses and failure to account for soft drinks. Pepsi, through a certification, clarified the volume of donated products and stated no cash assistance was given. Respondent was terminated on January 12, 2006, on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, among other claims. The Executive Labor Arbiter (LA) initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding valid dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, but ordered separation pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially found the dismissal illegal and ordered backwages, separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees. However, upon reconsideration, the NLRC reversed its decision, setting aside its earlier resolution and dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC's reversed decision and reinstated the NLRC's initial resolution finding the dismissal illegal. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in holding that Kimwa operated the establishments, in its findings regarding loss of trust and confidence, and in granting moral and exemplary damages.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Whether Kimwa Construction operated Leo's Restobar and Mountain Suite Business Apartelle, making them accountable for the dismissal. Whether respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages.
Ruling
The Court denies the Petition. The Decision dated November 27, 2012 and Resolution dated July 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R SP No. 03222-MIN are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence: The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove that their loss of trust on respondent was founded on clearly established facts. While respondent occupied a position of trust as Administrative Officer/HR Head, the grounds for dismissal were not substantiated. The verbal authorization from Leo to sign the Pepsi contract was corroborated by Pepsi's Sales Manager. Even if there was no express authority, signing the contract fell within respondent's duties overseeing operations. The LA himself recognized that respondent acted in good faith and presumed she was authorized. There was no malice, fraudulent intent, or personal benefit derived by respondent from the contract, and the Restobar did not suffer damages. The charge of failing to account for Pepsi products was also unsubstantiated, as Pepsi clarified the donations. The charge of dishonesty for food expenses was not specified in the termination notice and was offset by deductions from respondent's salary. Therefore, the loss of trust and confidence was merely simulated and arbitrarily asserted. On the issue of whether Kimwa Construction operated Leo's Restobar and Mountain Suite Business Apartelle: The Court found sufficient evidence that Kimwa, Leo, and Amelia owned, managed, and operated the Restobar and the Apartelle, treating them as a single entity for accountability. Leo, as Proprietor/CEO of Kimwa, appointed respondent to her position in the Restobar and Apartelle. Memoranda and the termination notice were issued under the heading "Kimwa Construction & Dev. Corp." The Restobar was named after Leo. Thus, the petitioners were treated as a single entity accountable for the dismissal. On the issue of whether respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages: The Court sustained the grant of moral and exemplary damages. Petitioners primarily charged respondent with entering the Pepsi contract without authority, yet Leo was aware of it, the Restobar received the products, and respondent was dismissed despite her explanation and Pepsi's clarification. This indicated a pre-determined dismissal and bad faith on the part of the petitioners. The dismissal was carried out in a malicious and oppressive manner, warranting moral damages for bad faith and exemplary damages to deter similar acts. Attorney's fees were also sustained.
Main Doctrine
To dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, the employer must prove that the employee held a position of trust and that the loss of trust was based on a willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts. Mere suspicion, whims, or caprices are insufficient grounds for dismissal.