Mababangloob v. Zuellig Pharma Corp.
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 2017. The case involves an illegal dismissal complaint filed by petitioner Edgar Martin B. Mababangloob against respondents Zuellig Pharma Corporation and its officers. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal of the complaint. The Court found that respondents had established petitioner's dishonesty through various irregularities and false claims in his reimbursement report, justifying his termination for fraud or willful breach of trust. The Court held that for a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust of the employer is sufficient for his dismissal, and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232232. November 29, 2017.]
EDGAR MARTIN B. MABABANGLOOB, petitioner,vs. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION, RAYMUND AZURIN, ROSA MARIE CHUA, AND MANUEL CONCIO, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 November 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232232 (Edgar Martin B. Mababangloob v. Zuellig Pharma Corporation, Raymund Azurin, Rosa Marie Chua, and Manuel Concio, Jr.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 13, 2017 Decision 1 and June 15, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145729 for failure of petitioner Edgar Martin B. Mababangloob (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of his complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents Zuellig Pharma Corporation and its officers Raymund Azurin, Rosa Marie Chua, and Manuel Concio, Jr. (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents had sufficiently established petitioner's dishonesty as shown in the various irregularities and/or false claims reflected in his reimbursement report, warranting his termination from employment for fraud or willful breach of trust. 3 It should be emphasized that as regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. As such, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position, 4 as in this case. SDHTEC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 36-44. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring.
2.Id. at 46-47.
3. See Bravo v. Urios College, G.R. No. 198066, June 7, 2017.
4. See Alaska Milk Corp. v. Ponce, G.R. Nos. 228412 & 228439, July 26, 2017.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU