Claire Abigail M.

Agpay

#39 Editha Agayan vs Kital Philippines, Corp.

GR No. 229703 December 4, 2019

Statement of Issue: Whether petitioner, Head of Telecommunications of respondent company,

was validly dismissed from employment on the grounds of willful disobedience and breach of
trust and confidence when she refused to obey the order of the President to provide him the
names of the company’s relations manager, and for organizing another company in direct or
indirect competition with the business of her employer

Petitioner’s Argument: Petitioner claims that she was dismissed from employment without just
cause due to respondents’ disdain for her. She maintains that her refusal to give the names of the
company’s relations manager is justified as she was committed to keep those with
confidentiality.

Respondents’ Argument: Petitioner committed several infractions in the course of her

employment.

Instruction Learned: Willful disobedience requires the concurrence of the following: the
employee’s assailed conduct has been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized
by a “wrongful and perverse attitude”; and the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful,
made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to
discharge. As regards loss of trust and confidence, for there to be a valid dismissal, the breach of
trust must be willful – it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without
justifiable excuse. With respect to a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for
believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for her
dismissal.

Ruling of the Court: Yes. Petitioner was validly dismissed from employment.

Ratio: Petitioner committed willful disobedience and breach of trust which are just causes for
dismissal under the Labor Code. Petitioner’s refusal to provide the CEO the names of the RMs is
not justified. She had no reason to keep information confidential from the CEO if the company
where she worked. As the CEO, respondent had every right to obtain this kind of information
from petitioner, especially, as the latter herself admits that these RMs are non-employees of
Kital. On the other hand, in dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the premise is that
the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. It is the breach of this trust that
results in the employer's loss of confidence' in the employee. In this case, petitioner was the
former Telecommunications Head of Kital which is a managerial position. She readily admits to
having formulated a business plan which, as found, seemed to be in conflict with the business
operations of Kital. This alone was already sufficient basis for the loss of confidence on the part
of Kital.