Marina Port Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 80962. January 28, 1991, Cruz, J. Facts
Marina Port Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 80962. January 28, 1991, Cruz, J. Facts
Marina Port Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 80962. January 28, 1991, Cruz, J. Facts
Facts:
Philippine Ports Authority canceled its arrastre management contract with Metro Port
Services, Inc. and directly assumed the cargo handling operations in the South Harbor of Manila.
Two days later, it awarded a permit to Marina Port Services(Marina) to undertake arrastre
services in the same port, subject inter alia to the following stipulation embodied in Paragraph 7
of the terms and conditions of the said permit:
Labor and personnel of previous operator, except those positions of trust and confidence, shall be
absorbed by grantee. Labor or employees benefits provided for under existing CBA shall
likewise be honored.
Marina retained the bulk of the 2,700-man personnel of Metro but refused to continue the
employment of 65 of the 123 persons constituting the security force. The guards excluded were
served with notices of separation, thus, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Marina maintains that they had no right to be re-hired because they were occupying
positions of trust and confidence as members of the security force and so came under the
exception in Paragraph 7.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Security guard falls within the positions of trust and confidence.
2. Whether or not dismissal was valid.
Ruling:
1. No. security guard must also be considered as enjoying the trust and confidence of his
employer, whose property he is safeguarding. Like the janitor, he has access to this property. He
too, is charged with its care and protection.
May
Notably, however, and like the janitor again, he is entrusted only with the physical task of
protecting that property. The employer's trust and confidence in him is limited to that ministerial
function. He is not entrusted, in the Labor Arbiter's words, "with the duties of safekeeping and
safeguarding company policies, management instructions, and company secrets such as operation
devices." He is not privy to these confidential matters, which are shared only in the higher
echelons of management. It is the persons on such levels who, because they discharge these
sensitive duties, may be considered holding positions of trust and confidence. The security guard
does not belong in such category.
The burden of proof rests upon the employer that the dismissal is for cause, and the
failure of the employer to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified.
PETITION DENIED