EPacific Vs Cabansay

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

ePacific vs.

Cabansay
Facts:
Respondent Ma. Lourdes Cabansay (Cabansay) was hired as Senior Traning Manager of ePacific
Global Contact Center, Inc. with a monthly salary of P38,000.00 on April 18, 2001 and became a
regular employee on August 1, 2001. In March 2002, respondent was tasked to prepare a new
training process for the companys Telesales Trainees. Mr. Rosendo S. Ballesteros (Ballesteros),
the companys Senior Vice President-Business Development Group, found that the same did not
contain any changes and that they were not ready to present it and instructed respondent through
an electronic mail (e-mail) to postpone the presentation and the implementation of the new training
process.
Adversely reacting to respondents attitude, Ballesteros sent Cabansay a memo on April 6, 2002,
informing the latter that he found her message to be a clear act of insubordination, causing him to
lose his trust and confidence in her as Manager of the Training Department.
Clarifying that this was merely a case of miscommunication and that she had no intention to
disregard the order to postpone the implementation of the new training process, Cabansay
submitted two memoranda dated April 8 and 11, 2002.
Respondent, thus, filed a case for illegal dismissal docketed as NLRC-NCR-04-02441-02 with the
Labor Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). She sought, among
others, payment of full backwages, separation pay, actual, moral and exemplary damages, cash
equivalent of vacation and sick leave, 13th month pay, and attorneys fees.
Labor Arbiter (LA) Madjayran H. Ajan rendered his Decision dismissing the complaint. The
company, thus, was justified in dismissing her on the ground of insubordination resulting in loss of
trust and confidence. As to her claim for 13th month pay, as well as for the cash equivalent of her
sick and vacation leave, the LA ruled that she impliedly agreed, when she did not object, to the
companys submission that the pro-rated equivalent of her 13th month pay was already paid to her
and that she did not meet the companys conditions for conversion to cash of her leave credits.
NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA.
Cabansay filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA which the CA granted.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Cabansay was illegally dismissed?
Ruling: The Decision of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, dismissing the
respondents complaint for illegal dismissal is REINSTATED.
Willful disobedience or insubordination necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1)
the employees assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and
perverse attitude; and (2) 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.[43] On the
other hand, loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a
willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. 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. 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. Loss of confidence must not also be indiscriminately
used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary.
And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related
and show that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.

You might also like