Claire Abigail M.

Agpay

#37 Lourdes School Quezon City, Inc. vs Luz V. Garcia

GR No. 213128 February 7, 2018

Statement of Issue: Whether the dismissal of respondent, a Chief Accountant, on the ground of
alleged theft and oversupply in the inventory of books in the petitioner company based on the
testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the latter, however failed to establish
respondent’s participation therein, was valid on the contention that mere existence of a basis for
believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for her
dismissal

Petitioner’s Argument: Respondent was validly dismissed from employment on the grounds of
breach of trust and confidence and habitual negligence because of the alleged theft committed by
the respondent on the basis of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the
petitioner.

Respondent’s Argument: Respondent denied all the accusations against her and maintained that
petitioner failed to support its charges against the former by substantial evidence. Hence,
respondent claims that she was illegally dismissed.

Instruction Learned: While an employer has its own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it
may terminate a managerial employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an
employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be tempered
with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution of
the said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee’s position, but his very livelihood,
his very breadbasket. Indeed, the consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence
presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the
latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was
for justifiable cause. Thus, when the breach of trust or loss of confidence alleged is not borne by
clearly established facts, as in this case, such dismissal on the cited grounds cannot be allowed

Ruling of the Court: No. Respondent was only remiss in her duties as Chief Accountant; there
was no malice or fraudulent act committed by the respondent. Hence, lesser penalty should have
been imposed.

Ratio: Both testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner failed to convince
the Court that respondent had malice aforethought at the time the alleged oversupply of
notebooks and theft in the textbook sale were being committed. Since participation of the
respondent was not established, the ineluctable conclusion is that respondent was dismissed on
the bases of petitioner’s mere suspicions, surmises, and speculations. However, the Court finds
respondent was somehow remiss in her duties as Chief Accountant of petitioner. She should have
been more circumspect in closely supervising those under her. Nevertheless, for lack of
malicious intent of fraud, her negligence or carelessness is not a justifiable ground to impose the
ultimate penalty of dismissal from employment. Loss of trust and confidence stems from a
breach of trust founded on a dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent act. In the absence of substantial
evidence to prove otherwise, the Court found respondent to not having committed the
accusations against her. Neither did she knowingly use her authority to misappropriate school
fund or property nor did she abuse the trust reposed in her by petitioner with respect to her
responsibility to implement school policies on accounting matters. The most that can be
attributed to Garcia is that she was simply remiss in the performance of her duties. As this does
not automatically demonstrate moral perverseness, it does not constitute dishonest or deceitful
conduct that would justify loss of trust and confidence.

Furthermore, respondent cannot also be said to have been grossly and habitually negligent in the
performance of her duties. She has not committed prior infractions in her more than two decades
of service with LSQC. There is no allegation or proof that she had been previously subjected to
disciplinary proceedings for violation of established school rules and regulations or found guilty
of any misconduct. Her negligence cannot also be characterized as gross in character. “Gross
negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence or the entire
absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to
avoid them”