Bibiana Farms and Mills Inc. vs. Lado, G.R. 157861, February 2, 2010

September 8, 1998, BFMI’s General Operations Manger (GM) issued a memo directing Art (Warehouseman with the tasks of receiving incoming and outgoing feed ingredients, supervising the feed mill laborers, empty sacks classifier and controller and feed ingredients classifier) to submit written explanation on the release of 68 bundles or 3,400 pieces when only 60 bundles or 3,000 were paid and covered by receipt; and on the release of one-use sacks when Rosie’s note was for mix-mix sacks.

On September 9, and 10, 1998, Art submitted his explanation/ clarification, apologizing for the incident but stressing that the company did not lose anything. He said it was an honest mistake due to time constraints and that he acted without malice or bad intention. But on the same day he was placed under preventive suspension for one week and was duly informed that the company would conduct an investigation on September 11, 1998 at 4 pm.

This is a case of dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence.

Art held a position of trust and confidence and was given access and authority over company properties with clear tasks and guidelines laid down very early in his employment. Like any business entity, BFMI has every right to protect itself from actual threats to the viability of its operations.

Here, he did not only violate the company’s trust and confidence; he had become a threat to the viability of the company’s operations. When he disregarded, Rosie’s note, he violated company procedures, laying the company open to loss which is already serious misconduct.

When he failed to unload despite the clear obligation to do so, he consummated his end of the deal that would have led to the loss of company property and thereby violated his fiduciary duty as custodian of company property.

Loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal of an employee from the service

(a) Should not be simulated;

(b) Should not be used as subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified;

(c) Not arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and

(d) Must be genuine not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.

These guidelines are complied with in the present case.

To rule that he should be reinstated would be oppressive to the company. The law in protecting the rights of the employee authorizes neither the oppression nor the self destruction of the employer.