Oppressive to employer

This is another case of dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence. It is the case of Art who started employment on November 2, 1982 as Quality Controller of Feeds in an agricultural company engaged in hog and cattle raising and corn milling (BFMI). By 1998 after almost 16 years of employment Art already held the position of Warehouseman with the tasks of receiving incoming and outgoing feed ingredients, supervising the feed mill laborers, empty sacks classifier and controller and feed ingredients classifier.

As warehouseman Art received a note from BFMI Cashier Rosie on September 7, 1998 regarding the purchase of 3,000/ mix-mix empty sacks priced at P3.50 per sack by one of their customers, Mildred. Upon receiving the note, Art showed Mildred 68 bundles of empty sacks or a total of 3,400 sacks at 50 pieces per bundle. At Mildred’s request Art loaded the 68 bundles for unloading at the gate after payment.

When Mildred was paying however, Rosie accepted only the cash payment for 60 bundles and refused to accept Mildred’s personal check for the excess. So the delivery receipt and the gate pass were issued for 60 bundles only. Art however did not personally oversee the segregation and unloading of the excess 8 bundles so they were not removed from the truck and the whole lot of 68 bundles was still unloaded at the gate. When Rosie passed by the gate on her way home she noticed that the sacks seemed to be more than 60 bundles so she asked for a count and it was confirmed that there were 68 bundles outside the guardhouse.

The next day, September 8, 1998, BFMI’s General Operations Manger (GM) issued a memo directing Art to submit written explanation on the release of 68 bundles or 3,400 pieces when only 60 bundles or 3,000 were paid and covered by receipt; and on the release of one-use sacks when Rosie’s note was for mix-mix sacks.

On September 9, and 10, 1998, Art submitted his explanation/ clarification, apologizing for the incident but stressing that the company did not lose anything. He said it was an honest mistake due to time constraints and that he acted without malice or bad intention. But on the same day he was placed under preventive suspension for one week and was duly informed that the company would conduct an investigation on September 11, 1998 at 4 pm.

As scheduled the company conducted its investigation where Mildred, the company recorder, two security guards, two laborers, and the dump truck driver testified. Art did not appear but instead filed on September 14, 1998 a complaint for illegal suspension against the company and the GM.

On September 15, 1998, the GM issued a Notice of Termination to Art for serious misconduct, dishonesty, willful breach of trust, fraud and loss of confidence and other grounds. Art received this on September 18, 1998 and thus later on he also filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which was consolidated with the case of illegal suspension.

BFMI and the GM insisted that Art’s dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence was valid since his position involved the care and custody of the company properties and his actions in releasing more than 3,000 sacks paid for was fraudulent. Was the company correct?

Yes. Loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal of an employee from the service (a) should not be simulated; (b) should not be used as subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; (c) not arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and (d) must be genuine not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.

These guidelines are complied with in the present case. Art held a position of trust and confidence and was given access and authority over company properties with clear tasks and guidelines laid down very early in his employment. Like any business entity, BFMI has every right to protect itself from actual threats to the viability of its operations. Given what happened on September 7, 1998, Art not only violated the company’s trust and confidence; he had become a threat to the viability of the company’s operations. When he disregarded, Rosie’s note, he violated company procedures, laying the company open to loss which is already serious misconduct. When he failed to unload despite the clear obligation to do so, he consummated his end of the deal that would have led to the loss of company property and thereby violated his fiduciary duty as custodian of company property.

To rule that he should be reinstated would be oppressive to the company. The law in protecting the rights of the employee, authorizes neither the oppression nor the self destruction of the employer (Bibiana Farms and Mills Inc. vs. Lado, G.R. 157861, February 2, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)