TEOFILO CESAR N. ECHEVERRIA v. VENUTEK MEDIKA, INC.

,
G.R. No. 169231
February 15, 2007
Carpio Morales, J.

Note: Misconduct has been defined as an improper or wrong conduct; a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action; a forbidden act; a dereliction of duty. It implies wrongful intent
and not mere error of judgment. To be categorized as serious, it must be of such grave and aggravated
character and not merely trivial and unimportant. And to constitute just cause for an employee’s
separation, it must be in connection with his work.

Facts: Petitioner Teofilo Echeverria was an assistant marketing manager of Respondent Venutek Medika,
Inc. a corporation engaged in the business of trade and distribution of hospital supplies and equipment
and an affiliate of the Dispophil Group of Companies (Dispophil Group).

Various companies in the Dispophil Group hold a joint marketing cut-off monthly meeting to review the
sales and marketing performance of the companies and discuss ways and means to improve them.
Sheila Vinuya (Sheila), an assistant regional sales manager, is in charge of conducting the monthly
meetings.

Prior to the meeting, petitioner approached Sheila and asked her if he could join the meeting so he
could give a short discussion of his vision of corporate "oneness" which he believed would help the
Dispophil Group generate sales. Sheila agreed to let petitioner speak after the meeting.

In the course of his discussion, it became apparent that his "vision and mission" differed from that of
respondent. Moreover, he made disparaging remarks about one of the senior officers of respondent,
Assistant Vice President Marlene Orozco (Marlene), criticizing her character, prompting one of the
marketing managers to question his authority to "preside" over the meeting.

Respondent issued a memorandum, requiring petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed
from employment for violation of Article 282 of the Labor Code: for serious misconduct and wilful
breach of trust and confidence. Petitioner, in compliance with respondent’s memorandum, reiterated in
writing his good intention behind the meeting and his denial of the charges against him.

Finding petitioner’s explanation unsatisfactory, respondent served upon him a letter dismissing him
from employment effective immediately. Petitioner thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issue: Whether Petitioner is illegally dismissed from employment?

Held: No. To justify the termination of an employee’s services, loss of trust and confidence as basis
thereof must be based on a wilful breach of the trust reposed in him by his employer. Ordinary breach
will not suffice. A breach of trust is wilful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely without
justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently.

In this case, the gravity of petitioner’s misconduct is gathered from the following considerations: first,
his misrepresentations to Sheila, the facilitator of the meeting, that he would only give a short
discussion of his vision on corporate "oneness" and he would invite the other division heads; second, his
conscious and deliberate plan to give the questioned "discussion" as gathered from his preparation of
slides and use of paraphernalia, even inviting other middle managers, not managers of the marketing
division; and third, his false claim that he had the blessings of the president of the company to discuss
his vision.

The utterance of obscene, insulting or offensive words against a superior constitutes gross misconduct,
which is one of the grounds to terminate the services of an employee.

It bears stressing that petitioner was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee. He was a managerial
employee, which required the full trust and confidence of his employer in the exercise of discretion in
overseeing respondent’s business. Therefore, he was bound by more exacting work ethics.