Phil Auto Components, Inc.

(PACI) vs Jumadla
GR No. 218980 | J. Mendoza | Nov 28, 2016

• Oct 2012 — Human Resources Dept. Manager of PACI received a tip that
some of their employees were planning to use a truck assigned to one of their
drivers (Loyola) to steal automotive parts the next day
• An entrapment operation was arranged with the assistance of the police
• The next day, the police caught Loyola in the act of unloading 4 boxes of
radiator fan assembly units in front of the residence of Salimpade in Laguna
• Both Loyola and Salimpade couldn’t produce documents authorizing the
release of the parts from the PACI warehouse and the delivery to Salimpade
• they were brought to the station
• Loyola, in his sworn statement, said that he was instructed by Jumadla and
Ariz to deliver the boxes to Salimpade
• he also said that there were 3 other times that Jumadla and Ariz told
him to drop off stolen parts in other places
• he claimed that he was approached by Conejos 2 days earlier and he
was convinced by the same man to participate in the stealing of PACI’s
products for sale
• Salimpade said that the boxes were left to him for safekeeping, also as
instructed by Jumadla and Ariz
• Two days later, Ariz tendered his resignation because he needed to care for
his sick dad
• He allegedly left his resignation letter (dated 10 Oct) with his wife and
told her to give it to Jumadla
• Jumadla was the one who submitted it
• On the same date, PACI sent show cause notices to Jumadla, Ariz and Conejos
(respondents in this case) directing them to explain why administrative
action shouldn’t be filed against them. They were also placed under
preventive suspension.
• They denied their involvement
• Two administrative hearings were conducted
• Jumadla confirmed that he personally knew Salimpade
• Respondents were found liable for serious misconduct, willful disobedience,
willful breach of trust and commission of a crime under Art 282 of the LC
• Respondents were dismissed from employment
• Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and
unfair labor practice
• PACI instituted a complaint for Qualified Theft against Jumadla, Ariz, Loyola
and Salimpede before the Office of the City Prosecutor
• LA: found that respondents were illegally dismissed
• The allegation that they took part in stealing from PACI was not
supported by evidence
• NLRC: affirmed the LA decision
• CA: sustained the NLRC decision
 • transactions Loyola had with respondents were not substantiated by
evidence
• Loyola and Salimpede’s sworn statements were self-serving,
uncorroborated and insufficient to show respondent’s complicity in
the theft
• CA took into consideration the pendency of criminal action for
qualified theft and the issuance of warrants of arrest against
respondents, therefore it ordered the payment of separation pay
instead of reinstatement because of the strained relations between
PACI and respondents

ISSUE: W/N respondents were terminated from employment for a just and
valid cause. — YES. The Court found that there was sufficient cause to justify
respondent’s dismissal from employment

Respondents were dismissed on the grounds of:

• serious misconduct, particularly theft of PACI’s products
• willful disobedience of company rules
• willful breach of the trust

The Court held that there was no substantial evidence to prove serious misconduct
• affidavits by Loyola and Salimpade only averred that the respondents were
responsible
• PACI failed to provide evidence that respondents sanctioned the delivery of
the products to Salimpade’s residense
• Respondents were not the only ones with access to PACI’s products
• Fact that Jumadla personally knew Salimpade didn’t prove theft
• Ariz’s resignation could have just been coincidence
• it’s been held that the mere filing of a formal charge doesn’t automatically
make the dismissal valid

BUT!! despite the absence of serious misconduct, respondents were validly

dismissed due to breach of trust and confidence
• Breach of trust and confidence — premised on the fact that the employee
concerned holds a position of trust and confidence, where greater trust is
placed by management and from whom greater fidelity of duty is expected
• betrayal of this trust is the offense for which an employee is penalized
• Requisites for a valid dismissal on this ground:
• 1 — the employee concerned must be one holding a position of trust
and confidence. he/she must be either:
• a managerial employee
• a fiduciary rank and file employee, who, in the normal exercise
of his or her functions, regularly handles significant amounts of
money or property of the employer
• 2 — there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and
confidence
 • the loss of confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust
founded on clearly established facts
• FIRST REQUISITE: Respondents belong to the first class, being managerial
staff in charge of their departments
• Jumadla and Ariz were Inventory Control Leaders of PACI’s Parts and
Materials Handling and Control Group and Finished Goods and Stock
in Delivery Group, respectively
• Conejos was Senior Inventory Control Associate for Air Conditioners
and Radiators
• their positions were necessarily imbued with trust and confidence
• SECOND REQUISITE: Police report showed that Loyola was caught in
possession of PACI’s products, which he transported to an unauthorized
location
• principle of respondeat superior means that respondents were liable
for negligence in the performance of their duties
• loss of considerable amount of automotive products under their
custody remained unrefuted
• they failed to account for the loss of company, which betrayed the
trust reposed and expected of them
• respondents didn’t offer an explanation why PACI’s products were int
he custody of unauthorized persons
• they might not have been directly involved, but their negligence
facilitated the unauthorized transporting of products out of PACI’s
warehouse and their sale to 3rd persons

PETITION GRANTED