Our country has very strict rules against dismissal of employees. Dismissal from work is not as easy as saying “you’re fired!” but has rules that must be followed by the employer otherwise the same may be considered illegal and will subject the employer to penalties. Among the grounds allowed by our laws is loss of confidence but even this ground has limited application and still subject to certain exemptions. The Supreme Court discussed this issue in a case of a Coca Cola employee who was accused of stealing from the company. In Coca-Cola vs. Alpuerto, (G.R. No. 226089, March 04, 2020) the Court said that penalty of dismissal from service was too harsh a penalty for such a very minor infraction. Alpuerto was a finance clerk of the company who was in charge in making sure that the assets and stocks of Coca Cola in its warehouse were properly managed. He worked at Coca-Cola for 11 years. It became a practice for the employees to consume bottles or cans of Coke that are close to their expiration dates (bad orders). One time, while on leave Alpuerto together with his family came to the warehouse to pick up 9 cases of drinks which are considered bad orders with the permission of the person in charge. When he returned to work however, he received a letter requiring him to explain which he complied with. After hearing, the company dismissed Alpuerto for the alleged theft of company goods. He filed a case of illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter but it was dismissed. He appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission but the decision of the arbiter was upheld. He then went to the Court of Appeals which reversed the decisions of the arbiter and the NLRC and held that Alpuerto was illegally dismissed. Coca-cola appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court.
Alpuerto was illegally dismissed
The Supreme Court sustained the decision of the CA. Alpuerto was illegally dismissed from employment. The penalty of dismissal from service is too harsh a penalty for the alleged offense of Alpuerto. Although the SC notes that the rules of the company states that theft of company goods or property may result to dismissal but Alpuerto should not be considered to have stolen the goods of the company because it was done in good faith since it was a practice of the employees to consume bad orders and that he asked permission from the one who was in charge during that day. Alpuerto cannot be also discharged on the ground of breach or loss of confidence because he acted in good faith. Dismissal on this ground applies to two types of employees: First, those who are occupying managerial positions, and Second, those who occupy fiduciary positions. Although Alpuerto’s position may be considered as fiduciary, he did not act in bad faith. The Court said: “Significantly, loss of confidence is, by its nature, subjective and prone to abuse by the employer.1âшphi1 Thus, the law requires that the breach of trust – which results in the loss of confidence – must be willful. The 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.” There is no bad faith in this instance because the consumption of BOs has been an accepted practice and he asked permission when he took those cases. The SC reiterates “the guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence, namely: (1) the loss of confidence should not be simulated; (2) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; (3) it should 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. In short, there must be an actual breach of duty which must be established by substantial evidence.”