MERALCO v.
Beltran For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for
GR NO. 173774| January 30, 2012
Del Castillo, J.
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: MERALCO
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: MA. LUISA BELTRAN
TOPIC:
Gross v. simple negligence
CASE SUMMARY:
Respondent was a senior branch clerk of petitioner,
MERALCO, who failed to promptly remit a customers
payment. This led to her termination from service. The Court
held that there was no sufficient grounds to warrant
respondents dismissal. The petitioner, as employer, failed to
justify the legality of her respondents dismissal. For loss of
trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal, it
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. In addition, loss
of trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and
not on the employers arbitrariness, whims, caprices or
suspicion In this case, the employer failed to justify the
legality of respondents dismissal. Moreover, tojustify
removal from service, the negligence should be gross and
habitual. Gross negligence x x x is the want of even slight
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is
duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
Habitual neglect, on the other hand, connotes repeated
failure to perform ones duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances. No concrete evidence
was presented by MERALCO to show that Beltrans delay in
remitting the funds was done intentionally. Neither was it
shown that same is willful, unlawful and felonious contrary
to MERALCOs finding as stated in the letter of termination
it sent to Beltran. Surely, Beltrans single and isolated act of
negligence cannot justify her dismissal from service.
FACTS:
Beltran was employed by MERALCO as Senior Branch Clerk
at MERALCOs Pasig branch. Beltran receipt of Changs
payment and issued an Auxiliary Receipt and having
remitted the amount only on after her immediate supervisor,
Garcia, called her attention about the payment and its non-
remittance. Beltran denied having personally used the
money.
The investigator found Beltran guilty of misappropriating
and withholding Changs payment of P15,164.48 and
recommended her dismissal. Beltran filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against MERALCO.
The LA regarded the penalty of dismissal as not
commensurate to the degree of infraction committed as there
was no adequate proof of misappropriation on the part of
Beltran while the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters
Decision and dismissed Beltrans complaint against
MERALCO. It found that Beltran withheld company funds
by failing to remit it for almost four months. The CA
however reversed NLRCs ruling and reinstated the LAs.
ISSUES:
WON there as convincing basis to dismiss respondent
from employment
RULING:
No. According to the Court, there was no sufficient
grounds to warrant Beltrans dismissal.
dismissal, it 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. In
addition, loss of trust and confidence must rest on
substantial grounds and not on the employers arbitrariness,
whims, caprices or suspicion In this case, the employer
failed to justify the legality of respondents dismissal.
In this case, Beltran attributed her delay in turning over
Changs payment to her difficult family situation as she and
her husband were having marital problems and her child
was suffering from an illness. Admittedly, she was reminded
of Changs payment by her supervisor on January 7, 1997
but denied having been ordered to remit the money on that
day. She then reasoned that her continued delay was caused
by an inevitable need to take a leave of absence for her to
attend to the needs of her child who was suffering from
asthma.
To justify removal from service, the negligence should be
gross and habitual. Gross negligence x x x is the want of
even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully
and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
Habitual neglect, on the other hand, connotes repeated
failure to perform ones duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances. No concrete evidence
was presented by MERALCO to show that Beltrans delay in
remitting the funds was done intentionally. Neither was it
shown that same is willful, unlawful and felonious contrary
to MERALCOs finding as stated in the letter of termination
it sent to Beltran. Surely, Beltrans single and isolated act of
negligence cannot justify her dismissal from service.
MERALCOs termination is not commensurate to Beltrans
inadvertence not only because there was no clear showing of
bad faith and malic, but also in consideration of her
untainted record of long and dedicated service to
MERALCO.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of
Appeals Decision dated November 25, 2005 and Resolution
dated July 19, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 67960 are AFFIRMED.