PACIFIC ROYAL BASIC FOODS, INC., Vs NOCHE
PACIFIC ROYAL BASIC FOODS, INC., Vs NOCHE
PACIFIC ROYAL BASIC FOODS, INC., Vs NOCHE
HERNANDO, J.:
FACTS:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the December 28, 2011 Decision and the June 25,
2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 112840.
Petitioner Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc. (PRBFI) employed VioletaNoche, Juliana L. Abrigunda,
Crisanta A. Talavera, Ma. Asuncion A.Arguelles, Ciriaca A. Velasco, Severa B. Quitain, Rosalinda
Balahadia, Anicia Dagle, Norma K. Plata, Zenaida B. Bulahan, and Susana D.Amparo (herein individually
referred to by their last names andcollectively as respondents) as coconut parers.
The respondents filed a complaint for non-regularization with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), Quezon FieldOffice. The reason behind their complaint were for non-regularization
on PRBFI's supposed failure to regularize their employment despite the length of time that they had
been working for PRBFI.
PRBFI then sent letters signed by its Production Manager, to respondents stating their issue
regarding the contamination that happened in their product, asking for the respondent’s reason for
them not to sanction them. They also suspend the respondents from work for 15 days.
Respondents denied any involvement in the product contamination incident. Velasco, Quitain
and Amparo questioned then the action of the PRBFI and give them reason for of all the employees of
the factory they are only the one who got suspended
PRBFI dismissed then the respondents from work. For the investigations result to the
contamination issue, that they found a valid ground for dismissing the respondents and that there has
been a loss of confidence upon the respondents.
Respondents filed a complaint against PRBFI for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension,
regularization, damages, and reinstatement before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
Regional Arbitration Branch IV.
The Labor Arbiter ruled for the respondents. The Labor Arbiter declared respondents entitled to
reinstatement to their former positions in PRBFI, payment of full back wages and other benefits, and
enjoyment of seniority rights and privileges. The Labor Arbiter further found respondents to be regular
employees of PRBFI.
PRBFI appealed to the NLRC. It also filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Reduce Bond (Motion to
Reduce Bond) and tendered a cash bond in the amount of P100,000.00. The NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiter. The NLRC also denied respondents' Motion for Reconsideration.
Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. They imputed grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the NLRC. The CA granted respondents' Petition for Certiorari. CA likewise
denied PRBFI's Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, PRBFI's Petition for Review before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not PRBFI’s ground to dismiss the employee based on trust and confidence is
proper?
The Supreme court disagree with petitioner and ruled in favor of the respondents, PRBFI’s
ground to dismiss the employee based on trust and confidence is improper. Respondents' positions as
coconut parers are essential in PRBFI's business of coconut products, but in no case do they fit the job
description of managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees. Manual work such as paring
coconuts for commercial production is a task that does not entail being routinely entrusted with the
care and custody of money and property belonging to the company like fiduciary rank-and-file
employees. Much less can coconut parers be considered to be directly involved in the management and
policy-making of their employer as managerial employees.
The court laid down on its previous decision in jurisprudence the 2 requisites for a valid termination of
employment due to loss of trust and confidence and the reason why loss of trust and confidence as a
ground to dismiss an employee is inapplicable to herein respondents:
The employee concerned must be one holding a position of trust and confidence, thus, one who
is either: (1) a managerial employee; or (2) a fiduciary rank-and-file employee, who, in the normal
exercise of his or her functions, regularly handles significant amounts of money or property of the
employer. The second requisite is that the loss of confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust
and founded on clearly established facts.
The court ruled that silence of an employee against the allegations of an employer should not
disadvantage them. It is within the employer to demonstrate truth by them presenting substantial
evidence. It is not right for petitioner PRBFI to hold that respondents never contested the accusations
against them during the investigations and presumed that by default that respondents by silence have
admitted the truth of the said allegations.
On the claim of the petitioner that respondents are dismissible for loss of trust and confidence
since the latter’s acts were inimical, the court held that this contention must fail. Indeed, trust is
fundamental in every employer-employee relationship. Not all employees, however, are dismissible on
the basis of loss of trust and confidence. Only managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file
employees may be terminated from work on such ground. If PRBFI's theory would be sustained, then all
employees shall be inequitably deemed as holding positions of fiduciary nature. Respondents having
occupied ordinary rank-and-file posts with petitioner, their dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence is illegal.
FALLO:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed December 28, 2011 Decision
and the June 25, 2012 Resolution by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112840 are AFFIRMED, with
the MODIFICATION that the monetary awards to respondents shall earn legal interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid by PRBFI.
SO ORDERED.