[401] LOURDES SCHOOL QUEZON CITY, INC. v.

GARCIA o Garcia immediately complied by giving back the passbooks,

G.R. No. 213128; February 07, 2018; Peralta, J. certificates and receipts of placements and post-dated checks
issued by parents for payment of tuition fees as well as the
TOPIC: passbook of Lourdes Church's placement in a bank.
 The findings, with respect to Garcia, were as follows – Garcia cannot deny
SUMMARY her culpability in the oversupply of notebooks because:
Respondent Garcia was the Chief Accountant and Head of the Accounting o Contrary to Garcia's claims that she does not dip her hands or she
Office of Lourdes School Quezon City. Garcia was subjected to the under a is hands-off in purchasing, she is in fact privy to the transactions
memorandum creating two committees to investigate on the possible and workings of the purchasing officer;
irregularities in the purchase of notebooks and the sale of textbooks in the o As immediate head of the Accounting office and the most trusted
school. Two committees found her culpable. As a result, she was placed person in the Office, Garcia should have instituted an accounting
under a 30-day preventive suspension. Garcia protested her suspension, system that is efficient and systematic.
treating it as constructive dismissal and demanded reinstatement. LA: Garcia  THE FIRST COMMITTEE: recommended the termination of employment of
was negligent in her function as Chief Accountant. NLRC: sustained the LA Garcia for breach of trust and confidence through gross and habitual neglect
decision. CA: reversed and set aside the NLRC decision. SC: affirmed CA. of duty.
 THE SECOND COMMITTEE: on the same ground, the second committee
DOCTRINE suggested her immediate dismissal, reasoning that
 This Court has distinguished the treatment of managerial employees from that "[it] would be harmful and more damaging for LSQC to wait until
of rank-and-file personnel, insofar as the application of the doctrine of loss of further damage or harm is done especially on the financial aspect
trust and confidence is concerned. of the school due to an imminent malpractice or possible
o With respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and misrepresentation of school's finances."
confidence, as ground for valid dismissal, requires proof of  On January 11, 2011, Fr. Acuin furnished Garcia with a copy of the results
involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere conducted by the two committees and directed her to submit a written
uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will explanation on why she should not be dismissed from service.
not be sufficient. o In compliance, Garcia submitted her written explanation.
o As regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a o On February 21, 2011, Garcia was placed under a 30-day
basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of preventive suspension with pay.
his employer would suffice for his dismissal. o She protested her suspension, treating it as constructive dismissal,
at the very least, and demanding her immediate reinstatement.
RELEVANT PROVISION(S)  LA: Garcia was negligent in her function as Chief Accountant.
 NLRC: sustained the LA decision.
FACTS o Garcia: petitioned to the CA.
 Petitioner Lourdes School Quezon City, Inc. (LSQC) is a non-stock, non-profit  CA: granted Garcia’s petition and reversed and set aside the NLRC decision.
educational institution offering elementary and high school education. o Declared the dismissal of Luz Garcia as illegal and consequently
o Prior to the termination of her service, respondent Luz V. Garcia ordering Lourdes School, Inc./Lourdes School Quezon City to pay
(Garcia) was its Chief Accountant and Head of the Accounting her full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or
Office with a monthly salary of P56,912.10. their monetary equivalent, from the time of her dismissal up to the
 Sometime in September 2010, Fr. Cesar Acuin (Acuin), Rector of LSQC, finality of the decision,
issued a Memorandum creating two committees to investigate on the possible
irregularities in the purchase of notebooks and the sale of textbooks in the ISSUE(S)/HELD
school. WON the CA erred in ruling that petitioner failed to comply with the requisites of
o Garcia, as one of the employees subject of the investigations, was valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence. – NO
requested to submit a written report/statement on the matter.  It must be noted that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
 In a letter dated October 1, 2010, Fr. Antonio Ala (Ala), Treasurer of LSQC, employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause and
instructed Garcia to turn-over all the money and other financial resources of failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified.
the school.
 o This is in consonance with the guarantee of security of tenure in  In this case, the evidence submitted, both testimonial and documentary, fail
the Constitution and elaborated in the Labor Code. to convince Us that Garcia had malice aforethought at the time the alleged
o A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the oversupply of notebooks and theft in the textbook sale were being committed.
charges leveled against him by his employer.  We do not agree with petitioner that Garcia was grossly and habitually
 The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a negligent in the performance of her duties.
just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good o She has not committed prior infractions in her more than two
faith and after observing due process. decades of service with LSQC.
 As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence, as a o Her negligence cannot also be characterized as gross in character.
just cause for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that an  Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight
employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by care or diligence or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless
management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.
expected. o At most, Garcia's misplaced trust constitutes error of judgment but
o This includes managerial personnel entrusted with confidence on not gross negligence. While petitioner is not mistaken to argue that,
delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and although not habitual, gross neglect of duty is sufficient cause to
protection of the employer's property. dismiss an employee, such is definitely not the case here.
o The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an
employee is penalized. RULING
 This Court has distinguished the treatment of managerial employees from that
of rank-and-file personnel, insofar as the application of the doctrine of loss of DISPOSITIVE: CA decision AFFIRMED.
trust and confidence is concerned.
o With respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and
confidence, as ground for valid dismissal, requires proof of
involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere
uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will
not be sufficient.
o As regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a
basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of
his employer would suffice for his dismissal.
 Hence, in the case of managerial employees, proof
beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being
sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of
confidence.
 The loss of trust and confidence must be based not on ordinary breach by the
employee of the trust reposed in him by the employer, but, in the language of
Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code, on willful breach.
o A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and
purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act
done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.
o It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employers
arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the
employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.
o It should be genuine and not simulated; nor should it appear as a
mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith or a
subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified.
 There must be an actual breach of duty committed by the
employee which must be established by substantial
evidence.