ANGELES v. ST. CATHERINE REALTY CORPORATION [G.R. Nos. 223582 & 223788, August 7, 2024]

 CASE DIGEST

ANGELES v. ST. CATHERINE REALTY CORPORATION

[G.R. Nos. 223582 & 223788, August 7, 2024]

FIRST DIVISION, MARQUEZ, J.

 

Loss of Trust and Confidence; Position of Trust; Managerial Employees; Fiduciary Rank-and-File Employees; Willful Breach; Substantial Evidence; Burden of Proof; Illegal Dismissal

 

Only managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees — those routinely entrusted with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property — may be dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. The job title is not controlling; it is the actual nature of the employee’s duties that determines whether the position is one of trust. Where the employee is rank-and-file, the employer must prove the employee’s actual involvement in the act complained of, as mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations will not suffice. In all cases the breach must be willful — done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse — and the employer’s case succeeds or fails on the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of that adduced by the employee.

 

St. Catherine Realty Corporation developed the Dizon Estate Subdivision in San Fernando, Pampanga. Ricardo D. Angeles was employed from March 2001 to June 1, 2010, serving successively as driver, marketing staff, and later as surveyor/purchaser. Francisco Pacheco, Jr. was employed as a landscaper from August 2006 until June 1, 2010. 

In March 2010, both were instructed to canvass prices for ornamental plants at Danbel’s Garden. They reported unit prices of PHP 40.00 for Picara Small, PHP 40.00 for Battle Brush, PHP 60.00 for Miyagos, and PHP 5.00 for Peanut. On the basis of that canvass, they purchased the plants on March 24, 2010 under Sales Invoice No. 1134 for a total of PHP 15,100.00. 

The plants later withered, and management came to believe that the quantities purchased exceeded what was necessary. On May 13, 2010, a management employee, Rowena Tacubanza, purchased identical items from the same supplier under Sales Invoice No. 1161 at markedly lower unit prices — PHP 35.00 for Battle Brush, PHP 50.00 for Miyagos, and PHP 18.00 for Picara Small. On the strength of this price discrepancy, St. Catherine terminated both employees on June 1, 2010 for “willful breach of the trust reposed in [them],” and later filed criminal charges for estafa. 

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, holding that the invoices furnished substantial basis for the termination. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and declared both employees illegally dismissed, noting that St. Catherine failed to refute the garden owner’s explanation that the plants purchased in March were larger, in-demand items of limited stock, and finding that neither employee occupied a position of trust and confidence. 

The Court of Appeals (CA) partially granted St. Catherine’s petition. It sustained the finding that Pacheco was illegally dismissed, a landscaper’s position not being one of trust, but held that Angeles was validly dismissed because, as surveyor/purchaser, he had “full control” over pricing information and purchase terms and had allegedly manipulated prices. Both parties elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the petitions.

 

 

Whether the Supreme Court may review the factual findings of the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals in this case.

YES. While a petition for review on certiorari is ordinarily confined to questions of law, the Court may examine the evidence anew where the findings of the labor tribunals and of the CA are contradictory. Here the conflict was patent: the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint outright; the NLRC found both employees illegally dismissed; and the CA held Pacheco illegally dismissed but Angeles validly dismissed. The Court therefore delved into the records and examined the questioned findings for itself.

 

 

Whether Angeles, as surveyor/purchaser, occupied a position of trust and confidence that would justify his dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

NO. The Court reiterated that only two classes of employees may be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence: managerial employees, who are vested with the power to lay down and execute management policies; and fiduciary rank-and-file employees — such as cashiers, auditors, and property custodians — who are routinely entrusted with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property. 

The CA merely assumed that Angeles held a position of trust from the circumstance that he had “full control” of pricing information and purchase terms. The Court rejected the assumption. There was no substantial evidence that Angeles regularly handled significant amounts of money or property belonging to St. Catherine; his role in a single canvass and purchase of ornamental plants did not convert his post into a fiduciary one. The designation of the position is not controlling; what governs is the actual nature of the duties performed. Absent substantial evidence that the employee occupies such a position, dismissal on this ground is illegal and cannot be upheld. 

 

 

Whether substantial evidence established that Angeles willfully and deliberately breached the trust reposed in him.

NO. The Court held that even assuming Angeles occupied a fiduciary position, the second requisite was not met. Loss of trust and confidence under Article 297(c) [formerly 282(c)] of the Labor Code must rest on a willful breach — one “done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently.” The act must be real, founded on clearly established facts, and without justifiable reason. 

The bare discrepancy between the March and May invoices was hardly substantial evidence that Angeles willfully and deliberately misled his employer. The owner of Danbel’s Garden had explained that the plants bought in March were larger and in greater demand, with limited stock — an explanation the CA “conveniently dismissed.” In doing so, the CA effectively shifted the burden onto Angeles, when in a dismissal case the employer’s case succeeds or fails on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of that adduced by the employee. St. Catherine presented nothing to rebut Angeles’s explanation or to show that he connived with the supplier to inflate the prices. For rank-and-file employees in particular, loss of trust and confidence requires proof of actual involvement in the events in question; uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not do. 

 

 

Whether Pacheco, as landscaper, occupied a position of trust and confidence.

NO. The Court sustained the CA on this point. Manual landscaping work does not entail being routinely entrusted with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property, and there was in any event no evidence of Pacheco’s involvement in the supposed fraud. His dismissal was therefore likewise illegal. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTED the petition in G.R. No. 223582, DENIED the petition in G.R. No. 223788, and reinstated the NLRC Decision with modification, awarding both Angeles and Pacheco separation pay in lieu of reinstatement — more than a decade having elapsed since the filing of the complaint — plus backwages, allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, with legal interest at 12% per annum from the time they were withheld until June 30, 2013, 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality, and 6% per annum from finality until full satisfaction. The case was remanded to the arbitration branch of origin for computation.





CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT