Loss of Confidence: A Precarious Ground for Employee Dismissal

G.R. No. 91935, March 04, 1996

Imagine losing your job not because you made a mistake, but because your employer simply felt they couldn’t trust you anymore. In the Philippines, the concept of “loss of confidence” is often used as a justification for employee dismissal. However, the Supreme Court case of Rodolfo Quiambao vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Central Cement Marketing Corp. sheds light on the limitations and requirements for employers using this ground. This case underscores that employers cannot simply claim loss of confidence without concrete evidence and due process.

Understanding “Loss of Confidence” in Philippine Labor Law

In the Philippine labor context, employers can terminate an employee for just cause, including “fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.” This is commonly known as loss of confidence. However, this ground is not a catch-all for dismissing unwanted employees. The Supreme Court has consistently held that loss of confidence must be based on substantial evidence and must be related to the employee’s performance of their duties.

The Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 297 [formerly Article 282], outlines the just causes for termination:

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

The key here is the phrase “willful breach of trust.” This implies that the employee must have intentionally violated the trust placed in them. Mere suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations are not enough.

For example, if a cashier is consistently short in their cash count, and an investigation reveals that they have been pocketing the missing money, this could be a valid ground for dismissal based on loss of confidence. However, if the shortages are minor and could be attributed to simple errors, dismissal may be unwarranted.

The Case of Rodolfo Quiambao: A Manager Wrongfully Dismissed?

Rodolfo Quiambao was the Branch Manager of Central Cement Corporation’s Tuguegarao Branch. After a financial audit revealed irregularities, he was suspended and later terminated for poor performance, violation of company rules, and gross negligence. Central Cement also filed criminal charges of estafa against him, as well as a civil case for collection of debts.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• Initial Suspension: Quiambao was suspended based on the audit findings.
• Criminal and Civil Cases: Central Cement filed criminal and civil cases against Quiambao.
• Case Dismissals: The criminal case was dismissed due to the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear, and the civil suit was dismissed for failure of Central Cement to prove its case.
• Demand for Reinstatement: Quiambao demanded reinstatement, but Central Cement instead terminated him based on loss of confidence.
• Labor Arbiter’s Decision: The Labor Arbiter ruled that Quiambao was illegally dismissed and ordered Central Cement to pay backwages, separation pay, and damages.
• NLRC Reversal: The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing Quiambao’s complaint.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Quiambao, emphasizing the importance of due process and substantial evidence in termination cases. The Court noted that Central Cement failed to substantiate its allegations against Quiambao. “The NLRC merely relied on the fact that the Ministry of Justice found petitioner probably guilty of estafa. In fact, the NLRC found that the charges against him had not been substantiated.”

The Court also highlighted the lack of a proper company investigation and the dismissal of both the criminal and civil cases against Quiambao. Therefore, it was grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to uphold petitioner’s dismissal.

Practical Implications: What Employers and Employees Need to Know

This case serves as a crucial reminder to employers that loss of confidence cannot be invoked lightly. Employers must conduct thorough investigations, provide employees with an opportunity to be heard, and present substantial evidence to support their claims. For employees, it reinforces the right to security of tenure and the importance of challenging dismissals that lack proper justification.

Key Lessons:

• Substantial Evidence is Key: Loss of confidence must be based on concrete evidence, not just suspicion.
• Due Process Matters: Employers must conduct a fair investigation and give employees a chance to defend themselves.
• Dismissal of Cases: The dismissal of criminal or civil cases related to the alleged misconduct can weaken an employer’s claim of loss of confidence.

For example, imagine a company suspects an employee of leaking confidential information to a competitor. Before dismissing the employee, the company must conduct a thorough investigation, gather evidence (e.g., emails, documents, witness statements), and give the employee a chance to explain their side of the story. If the company fails to do so, the dismissal could be deemed illegal.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is considered “substantial evidence” for loss of confidence?

A: Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence but does not need to be overwhelming.

Q: Can an employer dismiss an employee based on a pending criminal case?

A: Not necessarily. The employer must still prove that the employee committed a willful breach of trust, independent of the criminal case. The dismissal of the criminal case can weaken the employer’s position, as seen in the Quiambao case.

Q: What is due process in termination cases?

A: Due process requires that the employee be given notice of the charges against them, an opportunity to be heard and defend themselves, and a fair investigation.

Q: What can an employee do if they believe they were illegally dismissed?

A: The employee can file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Q: What are the potential remedies for illegal dismissal?

A: Remedies may include reinstatement to the former position, backwages, separation pay (if reinstatement is not feasible), and damages.

Q: Is posting a supersedeas bond required in appealing labor cases?

A: Yes, in cases involving a monetary award, the employer must post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the award to perfect the appeal. Failure to do so can render the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.