This preview shows page 117 - 119 out of 182 pages.
infringement of his constitutional right to due process. It bears emphasis that the matter of determining whether the cause for dismissal is justified on the ground of loss of confidence cannot be left entirely to the employer. Impartial tribunals do not only rely on the statement made by the employer that there is ―loss of confidenceunless duly proved or‖sufficiently substantiated. At all events, even if all the allegations are true, they are not of such nature to merit the penalty of dismissal given the 14 years in service of Felix. Dismissal is unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges. This rule on proportionality – that the penalty imposed should commensurate to the gravity of the offense – has been observed in a number of cases. There being no basis in law or in fact justifying Felix’s dismissal on the basis of loss of trust and confidence, his dismissal was illegal.Rolando Aromin vs. NLRC (GR NO. 164824 April 30, 2008)Facts:Aromin worked for BPI for 26 years, rising from the ranks to become an assistant vice-president. In a case involving a purchase of a BPI trust asset, Aromin testified to the surprise of BPI’s legal counsel. A show-cause memorandum was sent for him to explain why no disciplinary action shall be taken against him for testifying during the said hearing. 117 | P a g e
USPF LABOR RELATIONS REVIEW NOTES 2013 based on the outline of Atty. DemegilloCompiled by: Clint M. Maratas –LLBLater, he was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.Issue:Was the dismissal valid?Held:Yes.Loss of confidence, as a ground for dismissal, is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility or of trust and confidence. As such, the employee must be invested with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care of the employer’s money and other assets.Loss of confidence as a just cause for dismissal was never intended to provide employers with a blank check for terminating their employees.Loss of confidence should ideally apply only to cases:1)involving employees occupying positions of trust and confidence - managerial employees, i.e., those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies [effect personnel movements] xxx or effectively recommend such managerial actions;2)to those situations where the employee is routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property - cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc., or those who, in the normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property.Being, during the period material, an AVP, Aromin doubtless falls under the category of a managerial employee upon whom trust and confidence had been reposed by the employing bank. Violating that trust and confidence is a valid cause for dismissal under Art. 282 of the Labor Code.