Apo Cement Corporation vs. Zaldy E. Baptisma, G.R. No.

176671, June 20,

2012.
First Division
Del Castillo

FACTS: Apo Cement received information that some of its personnel, including
Baptisma who was who was then manager of the power plant department, were
receiving “kickbacks” from suppliers. Baptisma received a Show Cause Letter with
Notice of Preventive Suspension. He submitted his written explanation denying the
accusations hurled against him. A series of administrative investigations was conducted
to give him ample opportunity to defend himself. He then received the Notice of
Termination informing him of his dismissal from employment effective immediately on
the ground of loss of trust and confidence. He filed a complaint with the NLRC for
illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter rendered a judgment in favor of Baptisma. The NLRC
reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. It ruled that respondents "personal and direct
involvement in the irregularities complained of renders him unworthy of the trust and
confidence demanded [of] his position." CA reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter
stating that the employer failed to prove the existence of a just cause to warrant the
termination of the Baptisma as the alleged loss of trust and confidence was not based
on established facts.

ISSUE: Was there just cause for the dismissal of Baptisma?

RULING: Yes. To validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the following
guidelines must be observed: (1) loss of confidence should not be simulated; (2) it
should not be used as subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified;
(3) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary; and (4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action
taken in bad faith." More importantly, it "must be based on a willful breach of trust and
founded on clearly established facts." As between the positive testimony of Lobita that
he gave respondent commissions and/or "kickbacks" on two separate occasions, and
the negative testimony of respondents witnesses Cede and Banzon that no such meeting
took place, we are more inclined to give credence to the former. It bears stressing that
a positive testimony prevails over a negative one, more especially in this case where
respondents witnesses did not even execute affidavits to attest to the truthfulness of
their statements. Thus, it was error on the part of the Labor Arbiter and the CA to
disregard the testimony of Lobita.