FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 149930.
SULPICIO LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. QUINCIANO
GULDE, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. assailing the Decision, dated
As found by the CA, the factual background of the case is as follows:
Petitioner Quinciano Gulde (respondent herein) and one Martin
Manatad were employed as truck driver and truck helper of private respondent
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (SLI) (petitioner herein), respectively. Petitioner Gulde has been in the employ of
SLI for thirteen (13) years until his termination from the company on
The incident which gave rise to the case at bar happened on
September 15, 1996. It started after
Gulde and Manapat picked up private respondent SLI’s cargoes from
In his affidavit, Manatad related that while they were on their way to Butuan, Domeng and Etat slashed open the cargo where the basketballs were loaded. The two (2) were able to cart away four (4) basketballs when they are alighted from the truck at the time petitioner Gulde stopped at the house of one Benedicto Cagampang, a checker of SLI at Calao Street, near the Agusan Institute of Technology (AIT), to give to him his medicines. Manapat added that he did not do anything to stop Domeng and Etat for fear for his life because they have weapons.
Manapat further stated that petitioner Gulde was not aware that the two (2) persons boarded their truck. Petitioner Gulde only knew of the same when Manapat told him that Domeng and Etat stole four (4) basketballs. Manapat likewise added that they no longer reported the incident to SLI because one Boy Oco, who has a cargo in their truck and was following them, saw the incident that when Gulde stopped at Calao Street, Oco proceeded to the SLI’s warehouse and reported the incident to the warehouseman.
Thereafter, SLI reported the incident to the police and petitioner
Gulde and Manapat were investigated. On
Based on the foregoing facts, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
petitioner finding that respondent’s dismissal from employment was valid. On appeal, the NLRC initially reversed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. In its
decision of
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby VACATED and
SET ASIDE. A new decision is rendered
declaring the dismissal of complainant Quinciano Gulde, illegal. As a consequence, respondent Sulpicio Lines,
Inc. is directed to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss
of seniority rights and other privileges.
Respondent firm is further directed to pay complainant his full
backwages, inclusive of allowance, and other benefits, from the time his
compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.[2]
However, when petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself as it held that respondent's dismissal was valid for loss of trust and confidence.
Respondent then elevated the case to the Supreme Court but
following the pronouncement in St.
Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC (295 SCRA 494 [1998]), the petition was
referred to the CA. After consideration
of the evidence on record, the CA rendered the assailed decision finding the
dismissal of respondent illegal. In
effect, the CA reinstated the decision of the NLRC dated
Petitioner now comes to this Court alleging in the main that the CA erred in ruling that respondent’s dismissal was illegal. Petitioner insists that there was just cause, i.e., loss of trust and confidence, for the termination of respondent’s employment. The CA allegedly overlooked certain material facts that would prove that respondent conspired with the thieves in looting four (4) pieces of basketball from petitioner’s truck. These facts are allegedly as follows:
Firstly, respondent admitted that two looters have been constant riders on board the truck and in fact known to petitioner (should be respondent) and his truck helper;
Secondly, respondent allowed the two thieves to board his truck
from
Thirdly, respondent deliberately stopped the truck and allowed the two looters to disembark carrying the pilfered cargo with them. xxx;
Fourth, petitioner (should be respondent) did not report the pilferage to management despite his knowledge of the incident. xx x
Lastly, when the theft was discovered, it was petitioner (should be
respondent) and his helper who knew where the stolen items were stashed and in
fact went to the place where they were hidden and retrieved them.[5]
The petition is bereft of merit.
The basic requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust
and confidence is that the employee concerned must be one holding a position of
trust and confidence. However, loss of
confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer
against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.[6]
Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on
the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility or
trust and confidence. He must be
invested with confidence on delicate matters, such as custody handling or care
and protection of the property and assets of the employer. And, in order to constitute a just cause for
dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the
employee concerned is unfit to continue to work for the employer.[7]
Further, well-settled is the rule that “for loss of trust and
confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal of an employee, it must be
substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the
employee’s separation from employment.”[8]
In this case, contrary to the allegations of petitioner, there is no sufficient evidence to show that respondent conspired with the thieves in stealing four (4) pieces of basketball from petitioner’s truck. As found by the CA:
[I]t ca be gleaned that the evidence presented in the case did not clearly prove that petitioner wilfully breach his duty. It was not proven the indeed he connived with the thieves. The same was even commented upon by the NLRC when it said that the allegations that petitioner (respondent herein) knew the thieves were not even found in the police report. (p. 29. Rollo) Additionally, the reason given by the truck helper as to his inaction in preventing the thieves from taking the basketballs is not incredible. His reaction given the situation is not beyond human reaction to similar circumstances. It is a natural reaction to think about one’s safety first before the safety of another’s property.
Likewise, contrary to petitioner’s claim, respondent did not stop
the truck to allow the looters to disembark.
Rather, respondent made a brief stop at the house of a co-employee in
In fine, petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that respondent committed acts that would warrant his dismissal for loss of trust and confidence. It is significant to note that respondent had been in petitioner’s employ for thirteen (13) years and it has not been shown that during this period he had been guilty of any infraction against petitioner. It is difficult to believe that he would deliberately jeopardize his job for something as worthless as basketballs.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp.
30-31.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] PLDT vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 9 (1999).
[7] Sanchez vs. NLRC, 312 SCRA 727
(1999).
[8] Cruz vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 770
(2000).
[9] See CA Decision, p.
2; Rollo, p. 30.
[10]