Kino Consumer Phils. Inc. v. Jorgea C. Baldemor

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 244109. October 6, 2021.]

KINO CONSUMER PHILS. INC., AND JUAN CARLOS R. BONDOC, petitioner, vs. JORGEA C. BALDEMOR, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244109 — Kino Consumer Phils. Inc., and Juan Carlos R. Bondoc v. Jorgea C. Baldemor. — This present petition filed by Kino Consumer Phils., Inc. and Juan Carlos R. Bondoc (petitioners) seeks to reverse and set aside the July 31, 2018 Decision 1 and January 8, 2019 2 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154786. The CA reversed and set aside the National Labor Relations Commission Decision 3 dated October 30, 2017, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's (LA) Decision 4 dated June 30, 2017 that dismissed Jorgea C. Baldemor's (respondent) complaint for constructive dismissal.

The petition lacks merit.

In the present case the factual findings of the CA deviated wholly from that of the NLRC and the LA as to the presence of a just cause for the termination of Baldemor. In this jurisdiction, We give great weight and respect to the findings of the NLRC as it is a special body created to handle a specialized field of law. However, such findings are not at all conclusive to the CA. The CA, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction to entertain petitions for certiorari may affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the NLRC. In this case, the CA meticulously looked into each piece of evidence and found no support to the claim of the petitioners that respondent was terminated with a just cause.

The CA adjudged the NLRC and the LA to be in error in the appreciation of the evidence. It declared, after going over the records of the case that the assertions of respondent were more credible and entitled to greater weight than those adduced by the petitioners. It found that the petitioners failed to show that there was act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. The CA found that respondent merely failed, unintentionally, to put a note on the report explaining the deferment of the withholding taxes from the salary of two employees. The CA further noted that the same act of deferment of the withholding tax was not proscribed by the petitioners when it was done in 2014. 5

We agree with the CA as We find that its findings are in accord with the law and jurisprudence.

As We have discussed in the past, with respect to ordinary rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence, as a ground for valid dismissal, requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. 6 As regards a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. 7

In Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Baban, 8 We outlined the requisites for a valid dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, to wit:

It is clear that Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence. The right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence is well established in jurisprudence.

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. Verily, we must first determine if respondent holds such a position.

There are two (2) classes of positions of trust. The first class consists of managerial employees. They are defined as those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions. The second class consists of cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc. They are defined as those who in the normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property.

xxx xxx xxx

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 willful 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. 9

From the pronouncement of the Court in Bristol Myers Squibb, 10 it can be deduced that fiduciary rank and file employees such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, and those that regularly handle significant amounts of money or property are treated in the same category as managerial employees since their positions require utmost trust and confidence.

In this case, respondent was a Human Resource Supervisor. Her tasks and responsibilities includes the preparation of monthly payroll reports, monitoring of benefits and entitlements of employees, such as sick leave encashment, thirteenth month pay, and other benefits. As gleaned from the records, respondent does not occupy a managerial position in the company structure. She was classified by the petitioners as a rank and file employee. However, she is not to be categorized as an ordinary rank and file personnel. It is to be emphasized that it is not the job title but the actual work that the employee performs that determines whether he or she occupies a position of trust and confidence. 11 To the Court's mind, the duties assigned and performed by respondent involved crucial company resources as she has control over the accounts of the company. Thus, respondent is considered as a rank-and-file employee occupying a position of trust and confidence.

The lone matter that must be answered by the Court now is whether respondent's acts constitute just cause to terminate her employment.

For an act to be considered as loss of trust and confidence, it must be first, work related, and second, founded on clearly established facts. 12 The employer's loss of trust and confidence 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. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion. 13

We find the CA's appreciation that there was no willful breach of trust to be in order, the pertinent portions of its pronouncement is quoted below:

Pertinently, the deferment of withholding of taxes from the salary of Vertucio and Sumortin, as reflected in the payroll prepared by petitioner, was provisionary because it is subject to respondent Bondoc's approval. There is no damage or prejudice to the respondent company because the non-withholding of tax is not yet consummated.

Even assuming that the deferment of withholding of tax was effected, there is still no prejudice because, as correctly argued by petitioner, the taxes due may be deducted or withheld during annualization. Annualizing means equalizing the tax due on a worker's income from January of the current year-to-date, as against the withholding taxes that have been withheld from his pay for the same period. During annualization, the monthly taxes withheld from the employee are added together to come up with the total tax amount withheld for the year. There are two amounts (the total monthly taxes withheld and the total tax due), which are then compared. If the total tax withheld is less than the required from the employee, then the employee will be charged an additional tax due. If the total tax withheld is more than the employee's tax due for the year, the employee will receive the excess tax paid in the form of a refund. Consequently, the amount of tax not withheld from the employee during a particular month may still be deducted in other months when he is earning more money.

True, as payroll supervisor, petitioner is expected to submit an accurate and faithful payroll report without relying on respondent Bondoc to review its correctness. Petitioner, however, did not submit a fraudulent payroll report as insinuated by respondent Bondoc. She has no intention of defrauding the company nor tricking respondent Bondoc into signing the payroll report. She did not conceal the proposed changes in the payroll. We believe petitioner that she merely failed, unintentionally, to put a note on the report explaining the deferment of withholding of taxes from the salary of Vertucio and Sumortin. In any case, respondent Bondoc was not caught off guard, or rendered clueless by the proposed deferment because petitioner has approached him a couple of times to ask him to grant the request. Meanwhile, petitioner has reasonable basis for proposing the deferment of the withholding of taxes and believing that it shall be approved, considering that similar requests in the past were approved by the company. Indeed, petitioner was not penalized by the respondent company for doing the same act in 2014.

Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper and unjustified. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought intended to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith. The unsubstantiated claims of the respondents fall short of the standard proof required for valid termination of employment. They failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the petitioner's act of preparing a payroll report reflecting the deferment of withholding of taxes from the monthly salary of two employees rendered her unfit to continue working for them. 14

In summary, this Court does not view the acts committed by respondent as willful breach of trust. Respondent acknowledged that she postponed the withholding of the taxes of two employees. However, we do not find the acts to be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, and without any justifiable excuse that would show any purpose of defrauding her employer. On the contrary, this Court finds that the respondent's deferment of withholding the tax is for humanitarian reasons. To the Court's mind, the alleged misgiving of failing to withhold tax was tolerated in the past by the petitioners, hence, it is hard to fathom that it all of a sudden, became taboo. Further, petitioner Bondoc cannot be said to be out of the loop as regards the proposed deferment because respondent approached him a couple of times to ask him to approve the request. Further, assuming that she was not authorized to postpone the withholding of taxes, there could still be a remedial measure of balancing out the tax liability of petitioner's employees at the end of the fiscal year.

This Court is not stating that respondent should get off scot-free for her acts. As a Human Resource Supervisor, respondent was expected to perform her tasks according to the company policy; and if she feels that any policy or obligation is to be relaxed, she should always get the express authorization of her superiors. We find that respondent committed a lapse in judgement, but there is no showing that her acts were done with moral depravity. Thus, We find that the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning would have sufficed as punishment.

Respondent, as she was illegally dismissed is therefore to be reinstated to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and is entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time of the withholding of respondent's compensation up to the time of actual reinstatement. In case reinstatement is not possible due to the irreparable relations between the petitioners and the respondent, separation pay should instead be paid to the respondent equivalent to one-month salary for every year of service, computed from the time of engagement up to the finality of this Resolution. 15

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The July 31, 2018 Decision and January 8, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154786 are hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioners Kino Consumer Phils., Inc., and Juan Carlos R. Bondoc are ORDERED to reinstate Jorgea C. Baldemor to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to pay full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time of the withholding of her compensation up to the time of her actual reinstatement OR if reinstatement is not possible, to pay the equivalent of her one-month salary for every year of service, computed from the time of engagement up to the finality of this Resolution.

The monetary awards are further subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the proper execution of this Resolution.

The letter dated June 3, 2021 of petitioner Kino Consumer Philippines, Inc., requesting that upon payment of the proper fees, the bearer of the instant document be given a copy of the records of the case, is GRANTED upon proper authorization by Kino Consumer Philippines, Inc.

SO ORDERED." Dimaampao, J., designated Additional Member vice Lopez, M., J., per Raffle dated September 22, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a member of the Court) with Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring; rollo, pp. 35-44.

2.Id. at 46-49.

3. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez with Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and Commissioner Cecilio Alejandro C. Villanueva, concurring; Id. at 179-198.

4. Penned by Labor Arbiter J. Potenciano F. Napeñas, Jr., Id. at 144-153.

5.Id. at 41-42.

6.Lima Land v. Cuevas, 635 Phil. 36, 48-49 (2010).

7.Picar v. Shangri-la Hotel, 514 Phil. 119, 124 (2005).

8. 594 Phil. 620 (2008).

9.Id. at 628-629.

10.Supra.

11.Abel v. Philex Mining Corporation, 612 Phil. 203, 214 (2009).

12.Malcaba v. ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc., et al., 832 Phil. 460, 486 (2018).

13.Pardillo v. Bandojo, G.R. No. 224854, March 27, 2019.

14.Rollo, pp. 41-43.

15.M+W Zander Phils., Inc., et al. v. Enriquez, 606 Phil. 591, 611-612 (2009).