As the law regards workers with compassion, an employer’s right to discipline them should be tempered with compassion as well. In line with this, the imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal is justified only when there are sufficient grounds as supported by substantial evidence.
Our Ruling
MERALCO insists that there was convincing basis to dismiss Beltran from employment. While there was no concrete proof of misappropriation, the fact that there was withholding of company funds remains undisputed. This act of negligence by Beltran in the performance of her duties has resulted to the loss of trust and confidence reposed on her, notwithstanding her self-serving allegations of marital woes and family difficulties, which were not even corroborated by any clear evidence.
We do not agree. On the contrary, we support the CA’s finding that there are no sufficient grounds to warrant Beltran’s dismissal.
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 breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. In addition, loss of trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion. [25]
In the case at bench, Beltran attributed her delay in turning over Chang’s payment to her difficult family situation as she and her husband were having marital problems and her child was suffering from an illness. Admittedly, she was reminded of Chang’s payment by her supervisor on January 7, 1997 but denied having been ordered to remit the money on that day. She then reasoned that her continued delay was caused by an inevitable need to take a leave of absence for her to attend to the needs of her child who was suffering from asthma.
It should be emphasized at this point that the burden of proving the legality of an employee’s dismissal lies with the employer.[26] “Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide legal justification for dismissing employees.”[27] “[M]ere conjectures cannot work to deprive employees of their means of livelihood.”[28] To begin with, MERALCO cannot claim or conclude that Beltran misappropriated the money based on mere suspicion. The NLRC thus erred in concluding that Beltran made use of the money from the mere fact that she took a leave of absence after having been reminded of the unremitted funds. And even if Beltran delayed handing over the funds to the company, MERALCO still has the burden of proof to show clearly that such act of negligence is sufficient to justify termination from employment. Moreover, we find that Beltran’s delay does not clearly and convincingly establish a willful breach on her part, that is, which is done “intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without any justifiable excuse.” True, the reasons Beltran proffered for her delay in remitting the cash payment are mere allegations without any concrete proof. Nonetheless, we emphasize that as the employer, the burden still lies on MERALCO to provide clear and convincing facts upon which the alleged loss of confidence is to be made to rest.
Undoubtedly, Beltran was remiss in her duties for her failure to immediately turn over Chang’s payment to the company. Such negligence, however, is not sufficient to warrant separation from employment. To justify removal from service, the negligence should be gross and habitual.[29] “Gross negligence x x x is the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.”[30] Habitual neglect, on the other hand, connotes repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.[31] No concrete evidence was presented by MERALCO to show that Beltran’s delay in remitting the funds was done intentionally. Neither was it shown that same is willful, unlawful and felonious contrary to MERALCO’s finging as stated in the letter of termination it sent to Beltran.[32] Surely, Beltran’s single and isolated act of negligence cannot justify her dismissal from service.
Moreover, Beltran’s simple negligence did not result in any loss. From the time she received the payment on September 28, 1996 until January 7, 1997 when she was apprised by her supervisor about Chang’s payment, no harm or damage to the company or to its customers attributable to Beltran’s negligence was alleged by MERALCO. Also, from the time she was apprised of the non-remittance by her superior on January 7, 1997, until the turn-over of the amount on January 13, 1997, no such harm or damage was ever claimed by MERALCO.
Under the circumstances, MERALCO’s sanction of dismissal will not be commensurate to Beltran’s inadvertence not only because there was no clear showing of bad faith and malice but also in consideration of her untainted record of long and dedicated service to MERALCO.[33] In the similar case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Berbano, Jr.,[34] we held that:
The magnitude of the infraction committed by an employee must be weighed and equated with the penalty prescribed and must be commensurate thereto, in view of the gravity of the penalty of dismissal or termination from the service. The employer should bear in mind that in termination cases, what is at stake is not simply the employee’s job or position but [her] very livelihood.
Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by an employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment.[35] Hence, we find no reversible error or any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in ordering Beltran’s reinstatement without backwages. The forfeiture of her salary is an equitable punishment for the simple negligence committed.
No comments:
Post a Comment