SECOND DIVISION
[UDK 16724. November 23, 2020.]
FERDINAND NERVEZA DE GUZMAN, petitioner,vs. BONHEUR MARKETING CORPORATION/ERNESTO ONG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 November 2020which reads as follows:
"UDK 16724 (Ferdinand Nerveza De Guzman v. Bonheur Marketing Corporation/Ernesto Ong).
Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It will not examine, review or evaluate the evidence anew. Though there are exceptions to this rule, none exists in this case. Here, petitioner raises issues of fact. It is settled that findings of facts of quasi-judicial bodies like the National Labor Relations Commission and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in due course, are conclusive on this Court. 1
Nevertheless, the Court does not find error on the part of the CA in holding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. 2 In this case, respondents were able to discharge this burden.
Petitioner was dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Under Article (Art.) 297 (previously Art. 282) of the Labor Code, an employee may be dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence provided, that (1) the employee is holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there is an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. 3 As a sales agent, petitioner occupies a position of trust and confidence as he is routinely entrusted with the care and custody of the company's property in the form of sales and collections.
It is undisputed that petitioner incurred a shortage in his remittance and failed to account for it. This is sufficient evidence to establish loss of trust and confidence. As to petitioner's allegation that the CA did not rule on his monetary claims, the same is bereft of merit. The CA Resolution dated October 6, 2020 4 has clearly ruled on the matter, thus:
Petitioner's lament on his Motion that We did not discuss his entitlement to his other monetary claims deserved scant consideration because he failed to establish his right thereto. Again, petitioner failed to prove bad faith on the part of his employer in effecting his dismissal. Resultantly, for want of merit, there was rejection of his money claims by the labor arbiter, which disposition was affirmed by the NLRC. 5 (Citations omitted.)
As a rule, this Court leans over backwards to help workers and employees continue in their employment. We have mitigated penalties imposed by management on erring employees, and ordered employers to reinstate workers who have been punished enough through suspension. However, breach of trust and confidence, and acts of dishonesty and infidelity in the handling of funds and properties, are an entirely different matter. If there is insufficient evidence to show that the employer has ample reason to distrust the employee, the labor tribunal cannot justly deny the employer the authority to dismiss him. 6
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020).
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Aichi Forging Co. of Asia, Inc. v. Balintos, (Notice), G.R. No. 213653, April 16, 2018.
2.Raza v. Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc., 765 Phil. 61, 79 (2015).
3.University of Immaculate Conception v. Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, 769 Phil. 630, 656 (2015).
4.Rollo, pp. 24-26; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
5.Id. at 26.
6.P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. Velayo, 746 Phil. 781, 797 (2014).