FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213515. September 8, 2014.]
EMELIA ANCAJAS, petitioner,vs. PHOENIX PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC., PILAR BALBIN, MODESTO LUMBAN, ROY RABOR, AND TESSA DENILLA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 8, 2014which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 213515 (Emelia Ancajas v. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc., Pilar Balbin, Modesto Lumban, Roy Rabor, and Tessa Denilla).
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the March 19, 2014 Decision 1 and July 3, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 06293 for failure of Emelia Ancajas (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that respondent Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. (Phoenix) validly dismissed her from service.
As correctly ruled by the CA, Phoenix clearly and convincingly established the concurrence of the two requisites for a valid dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, 3 considering that: (a) as an Accounting Head, petitioner occupied a position of trust and confidence; and (b) aside from her previous infractions, petitioner was also responsible for the tampering of time cards and the disbursement of overtime pay without proper substantiation, resulting in monetary prejudice on the part of Phoenix and ultimately the latter's loss of trust and confidence in her.
The Court further resolves to DIRECT the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division to RETURN to the petitioner the excess amount of P470.00 paid for filing fees under O.R. No. 0099547 dated August 12, 2014.
SO ORDERED."SERENO, C.J., on leave; VELASCO, JR., J., acting member per S.O. No. 1772 dated August 28, 2014.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 19-28. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
2.Id. at 40-41.
3. "The first 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. x x x The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal must be based on a wilful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary." (Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Employee Labor Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 185335, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 375, 387; citations omitted.)