SECOND DIVISION
[UDK-16904. July 5, 2021.]
MARLON SALAZAR, petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BACOLOD ACREDITAR LENDING CORPORATION, AND EMILY*SEGOVIA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/ADMIN MANAGER, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 July 2021which reads as follows:
"UDK-16904 (Marlon Salazar v. Court of Appeals, Bacolod Acreditar Lending Corporation, and Emily Segovia, Officer-in-Charge/Admin Manager). — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner Marlon Salazar's (Salazar) motion 1 for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition 2 and AFFIRM the Decision 3 dated December 6, 2019 and the Resolution 4 dated October 26, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 11677 for failure of Salazar to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the validity of his dismissal on the ground of Serious Misconduct and Willful Breach of Trust.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent Bacolod Acreditar Lending Corporation (BALC) was justified in terminating Salazar's employment on the ground of Serious Misconduct and Willful Breach of Trust. It is settled that to warrant the dismissal from service of an employee on the ground of Serious Misconduct, the misconduct must be: (a) of grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant; (b) connected with the work of the employee such that the latter has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) performed with wrongful intent. 5 On the other hand, a dismissal based on Willful Breach of Trust entails the concurrence of two (2) conditions: (a) the employee whose services are to be terminated must occupy a position of trust and confidence; and (b) the employer must establish the existence of an act justifying the loss of trust and confidence. 6
Here, the Court finds the confluence of the foregoing requisites, warranting the termination of Salazar's employment. Salazar's act of depositing the payments from BALC's clients to the personal account of Renato Barredo, Jr. (Barredo), BALC's former general manager, and not to BALC's account amounted to Serious Misconduct, considering that it: (a) is not merely trivial, as it caused financial losses to the company in the amount of P7,800,000.00; (b) is connected with his work as a collector and liaison officer; and (c) was performed with wrongful intent, since the unauthorized encashments and irregular disbursements happened several times during his employment. 7 Moreover, the said act also constituted Willful Breach of Trust, since: (a) in the normal and routine exercise of his functions as a collector and liaison officer, he regularly handles significant amounts of BALC's money; 8 and (b) Salazar admitted that instead of depositing the proceeds to BALC's account, he deposited the same to the personal account of Barredo. Thus, based on the foregoing, Salazar was legally dismissed from employment.
SO ORDERED. (Lopez, J., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021)."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* 'Emilie' in other parts of the rollo.
1. Dated February 4, 2021; rollo, pp. 3-6.
2. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated March 5, 2021; id. at 14-26.
3.Id. at 270-285. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.
4.Id. at 293-295. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, concurring.
5. See Roxas v. Baliwag Transit, Inc., G.R. No. 231859, February 19, 2020.
6. See Bravo v. Urios College, 810 Phil. 603, 620-621 (2017).
7.Rollo, pp. 271-272.
8. 'There are two (2) types of positions in which trust and confidence are reposed by the employer, namely, managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees. Managerial employees are considered to occupy positions of trust and confidence because they are 'entrusted with confidential and delicate matters.' On the other hand, fiduciary rank-and-file employees refer to those employees, who, 'in the normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of [the employer's] money or property.' Examples of fiduciary rank-and-file employees are 'cashiers, auditors, property custodians,' selling tellers, and sales managers. It must be emphasized, however, that the nature and scope of work and not the job title or designation determine whether an employee holds a position of trust and confidence.' Bravo v. Urios College, supra.