FIRST DIVISION
AGRIPINO V. MOLINA, G.R. No.
165476
Petitioner,
Present:
PANGANIBAN, C.J., Chairperson,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus
- AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
CALLEJO, SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ.
PACIFIC PLANS, INC., Promulgated:
Respondent.
x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before us
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing
the Decision[1]
and Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 81298 reversing the Decision[3]
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR (South) Case No.
30-07-03393-01.
Pacific
Plans, Inc. (PPI) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of selling
pre-need plans, such as educational, pension, and memorial plans.[4] It maintains regional offices throughout the
PPI
solicited subscribers and buyers of its pre-need plans through clusters of
sales associates. One of them was Ruth
Padiernos, wife of Roy Padiernos.[8]
Sometime in
October 1994, PPI hired Agripino Molina as Regional Manager of Metro Manila VI,
replacing Roy Padiernos who was promoted as First Vice-President for Marketing
Operations. As Regional Manager, Molina performed both administrative and
marketing functions, whose duties and responsibilities included the following:
a. formulating and recommending
short and long range marketing plans for the Region and executing approved
plans;
b. generating new and
conserving existing pre-need plan businesses;
c. motivating, training, and
developing a dedicated and effective counselor force;
d. conducting researches to determine
sales potentials and share of the market, pricing, and profitability of
Company's products, competition and the directing of product development for
the Region;
e. hiring and terminating
counselors, unit managers or group managers in accordance with policies
previously laid out;
f.
recommending the creation of additional positions or termination of
services of any employee within the Region;
g. recommending promotions or
changes in salaries of personnel within the Region and lateral shifts of
supervisor, their assistants, understudies of positions of equal rank;
h. training and developing
understudies for each position within the Region to provide immediate
replacement whenever vacated;
i.
changing methods and procedures not affecting the other Regions,
provided, however, that radical changes should first be cleared with [the]
superior;
j.
controlling the operations of the Region and establishing a system of
periodic work reporting;
k. coordinating the Region’s
activities with those of the other Regions;
l.
keeping [the] superior informed of [the] Region's activities and
specially of [the] decision on matters for which he may be held responsible;
m. realizing the Company’s
objective for service, growth, and profit;
n. establishing and maintaining
harmonious and dignified relationship with plan holders, counselors, employees,
the public, government instrumentalities, other pre-need plan companies; [and]
o. further enhancing the prestige of the
Company and maintaining
its
position of leadership in its field.[9]
Since Metro
Manila VI was consistently on top in terms of nationwide sales and
productivity, Molina was promoted Assistant Vice-President with the same
functions as those of a regional manager of the same sales region.[10]
Caritas
Health Shield, Inc. (Caritas for brevity), a health maintenance organization
(HMO) engaged in selling health and hospitalization plans, was established on
In the
meantime, from February 2000, there was a considerable decrease in the sales
output production of PPI’s Metro Manila Region VI.[13]
On March
21, 2000, Molina received a Memorandum from PPI, through its Senior Assistant
Vice-President for Human Relations, Patricio A. Picazo, informing him that,
based on written reports, he committed the following: 1) recruiting and pirating activities in
favor of Caritas, in particular, initiating talks and enticing associates to
join Caritas, and a number of associates have already signed up; 2) he called
for a meeting with his associates sometime in November 1999, and solicited
contributions from them for the bill but later asked for reimbursement from the
company; and 3) acts of misdemeanor on several occasions, such as coming to the
office under the influence of liquor, initiating a smear campaign against PPI,
and other acts inimical to the company’s interest.[14] Molina was
also required to submit, on
In a letter
addressed to Picazo dated
I. Conflict of Interest
1.
Recruiting and pirating activities in favor of Caritas Health Shield, Inc.
* You have acted as conduit for Caritas in
recruiting/pirating Mr. Restie Acosta on
*Your failure to stop and/or tolerating
your wife's activities in recruiting for Caritas Ms. Lennie Gatmaitan who
belongs to Ms. Celeste Villena, a PPI GA.
II.
Misappropriation of Funds
1. Solicitation of associates'
personal funds in the amount of P200.00 per person, to which 12 persons
contributed for a total P2,400.00, for payment of official function
during the meeting held at Barrio Fiesta last November 27, 1999. Amount
solicited was subsequently reimbursed from the company but not returned to the
associates concerned.
III. Dereliction of Duties
1. You failed to prevent associates from
leaving the company in favor of competitors, thus causing demoralization among
your sales associates.
2. You even encouraged associates
to transfer to Caritas.
IV. Conduct unbecoming of a
Company Officer
1. Often reporting to office under the
influence of liquor.
2.
Sowing intrigue in the case of Vilma del Rosario which almost caused her
early retirement from the company and transfer to Caritas.
3.
Sowing intrigues between Mr. Roy Padiernos and Mr. Abia.
4. Showing disrespect to immediate superior, Mr. Roy Padiernos, by shouting at him and walking out in one of the meetings called by him after the retirement of Atty. Haceta.[17]
During the
investigation the following day, April 4, 2000, Molina reiterated his request
to be provided with a copy of the written reports.[18] Picazo denied the request in a Memorandum
dated April 6, 2000, and reiterated his order for Molina to submit his written
explanation on April 11, 2000, and to address his concerns during the
investigation scheduled on April 14, 2000.[19] Molina failed to submit any written
explanation. On April 24, 2000, PPI
issued a Memorandum advising Molina that he would be reinstated in the payroll
effective April 25, 2000 without requiring him to report for work during the
pendency of his investigation.[20]
Molina
filed a “Motion to Dismiss Complaints and Motion for Full Reinstatement” on May
2, 2000.[21] He asserted that the charges should be
dismissed since he was compelled to prepare a written explanation on the basis
of “summarized specific acts,” denying him the right to be informed of the
exact charges and to confront those who made written reports against him. As to the issue of reinstatement, he alleged
that he should be allowed to report for work, conformably with Rule XIV,
Section 4 of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code.[22]
On May 11,
2000, Picazo wrote Molina that his motion to dismiss the charges would be
resolved after the investigation. He was
warned that his non-appearance at the investigation would be considered a
waiver of his right to be heard.[23]
On the same
day, May 11, 2000, Abia issued an inter-office Memorandum announcing the
appointment of Sercy F. Picache as the Officer-In-Charge (OIC) for Metro VI and
XVI effective May 6, 2000.[24]
Molina and
his counsel attended the May 19, 2000 investigation and filed a Motion to
Suspend Proceedings,[25] praying that the administrative investigation
be deferred until the resolution of the “prejudicial” issues raised in his
previous motion.[26]
When Picazo
failed to respond, Molina filed, on June 1, 2000, a complaint for damages with
a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction based on
Article 19 of the New Civil Code. PPI
filed a Motion to Dismiss, maintaining that the courts have no jurisdiction
over matters arising from employee-employer relationship. The trial court denied the motion as well as
PPI’s motion for reconsideration.[27]
Meanwhile,
in letter dated June 13, 2000, Molina was notified of the termination of
administrative investigation. PPI
considered his failure to submit a written explanation as a waiver of his right
to be heard, and as such, the investigating committee had evaluated the
evidence at hand and submitted its recommendations to the “higher management”
for decision. Also, it confirmed the
denial of his Motion to Suspend Proceedings.[28]
On June 23,
2000, the trial court issued an Order granting Molina's prayer for temporary
restraining order, which was later made permanent per its Order dated July 12,
2000. The motion for reconsideration
filed by PPI on July 26, 2000 was likewise denied. Thereafter, it filed a
petition for certiorari before the
CA, assailing the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC and its
order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 16, 2001, the CA rendered judgment in
favor of PPI and nullified the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC
as well as the order denying the motion of PPI for the dismissal of the
complaint.[29]
On July 30,
2001, PPI resolved to dismiss Molina from employment on its finding that the
latter violated its standard operating procedure.[30]
Molina forthwith
filed a complaint with the NLRC against PPI and Alfredo C. Antonio, Patricio A.
Picazo, and Certerio B. Uy, in their capacity as President, Senior Assistant
Vice-President of Human Resources Development, and Division Head, respectively,
for illegal dismissal and illegal suspension with claim for monetary benefits.
In his
Position Paper,[31]
Molina principally argued that he was denied the right to due process due to
the failure of PPI to furnish him a copy of the written reports of the sales
associates and co-employees, the basis of the accusations against him. Since an OIC for his position was already
appointed even before all his pending motions were resolved, he surmised that
there were really no such reports, and that the alleged accusations were merely
concocted in order to replace him with someone close to Picazo. Molina maintained that since he was denied
the opportunity to dispute the authenticity and substantive contents of the
reports, his alleged violations of company rules and policies were hearsay and,
therefore, lacked probative value.
Besides, the termination of his employment was made without the 30-day
prior notice; his dismissal from employment took effect immediately, only six
days after PPI received the CA decision decreeing that the NLRC has the
rightful jurisdiction over the case.
Thus, he prayed for the following relief:
1. Total Money Claims
a) Salary with (overriding)
commission from March 21 to April 24, 2000 - suspended w/o pay - P45,000.00 (P25,000[.00] mo. salary &
P20,000[.00] [overriding])
b) Unpaid (overriding)
commission from April 25, 2000 to present - P400,000[.00]
c) Unpaid salary from August 1,
2001 to present - P125,000[.00]
d) One mo. salary for every yr.
of service in lieu of reinstatement - 7 years = P175,000.00
2. Leave Credits - P100,000.00 for 7 years
3. Profit Bonus for Year 2000
& 2001 - P400,000.00
4. Moral Damages - P300,000.00
5. Exemplary Damages - P500,000.00
6. Actual Damages - for
lifetime medical attendance and medicines at 16 more years life expectancy - P1,249,384.00
7. Attorney's Fees - P300,000.00
8. Amount debited from
complainant's ATM [as partial payment for hospitalization expenses incurred by
him which PPI had advanced] -
P12,000.00
9. Retention of complainant's
car, as additional penalty for illegal dismissal.[32]
For its
part, PPI stressed that Caritas was its competitor in the pre-need plans
business, and that Molina and his wife recruited and enticed some of the sales
associates of PPI to work for Caritas, in violation of its policy against
conflict of interest. Some of these
sales associates were the spouses Eppie and Restie Acosta, Lenita Gatmaitan,
Lolita Casaje, Lydia Magalso, Lydia San Miguel, and Alice Halili, and including
Vilma del Rosario, the secretary of Roy Padiernos. PPI, likewise, averred that Molina had the
habit of coming to the office under the influence of liquor; he constantly
shouted to lady employees and solicited money from his sales associates in connection with an official company function
without returning the same after PPI reimbursed him for the expenses incurred;
disseminated intrigues and created divisiveness among the employees and PPI’s
senior officers; and disrespected Padiernos, his superior, by shouting at him
during one of the meetings with other senior officers, and walked out of the
meeting
afterwards. Supporting its claims that
Molina committed breach of trust, serious misconduct, fraud, and gross neglect
of duty by reason thereof, PPI appended to its position paper the
statements/affidavits of Marivic Uy, Ruth and Roy Padiernos, Eppie and Restie
Acosta, Celeste Villena, and Vilma del Rosario.[33]
On the
claim of Molina that he was denied due process, PPI averred that he was given
sufficient opportunity to present his personal submissions before finally
issuing the notice of dismissal but Molina persistently refused to submit his
explanation.[34]
PPI further argued that he was not entitled to the payment of 13th
and 14th month salaries, overriding commission, profit bonus,
actual, moral or exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. PPI maintained that,
under Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, and the ruling of this
Court in Bańez v. Valdevilla,[35]
Molina should be held liable for P1,000,000 as moral damages and an
amount not less than P428,400.00 for the salary he received during the
time when the restraining order/ writ of injunction was erroneously enforced.[36]
In his
Reply, Molina averred that the affidavits submitted by PPI were antedated since
he was never furnished copies of said reports/affidavits despite demands. PPI
even failed to present the reports/affidavits before the RTC where his
complaint for damages against PPI and its officers was pending. He and Roy
Padiernos had been at odds because the latter appointed his brother and wife as
agency manager and group manager of PPI to which he objected. Molina averred that the P200.00
collected from each of the employees of PPI during their luncheon meeting was a
voluntary contribution, and that they spent P4,000.00, more than the
amount collected from the employees. He contended that he had no motive to
recruit sales associates or employees of PPI to be employed by Caritas because
the depletion of sales associates would diminish his effectiveness as an area
manager, including his overriding commission, profit bonus and fringe
benefits. He admitted that he may have
raised his voice in the heat of arguing a point during meetings, but averred
that it should not be considered as disrespect or misdemeanor.
Molina
further emphasized that Caritas was not a competitor of PPI, as the former was
engaged in selling health care and is supervised by the Department of Health
(DOH), while the latter is into the business of selling pre-need plans and
supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Finally, he averred
that the so-called “associates” of PPI were not actually employees but
“independent journeymen” who derived income on commission basis, free to engage
in any kind of selling activities not in direct competition with PPI.
Molina
admitted having had drinking sessions with Certerio Uy, Ilustre Acosta and
Reynaldo Villena, who provided the hard liquor and pulutan, but only after office hours. He claimed that his
officemates mistook him for being drunk when he went to his office even after
office hours because of his “mestizo complexion.”
In its
response, PPI averred that, based on the sales data, the acts of Molina caused
demoralization of the sales associates, resulting in a sudden decrease of the
region's output from P343,009,643.00 in 1998 to P263,099,773.00
in 1999, and P228,752,090.00 in 2000.[37] PPI insisted that he should be held liable
for not less than P507,348.00, P2,000,000, and P1,000,000
as actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, respectively, and P273,600.00
which was the balance on his car plan agreement with PPI.[38]
In his
Rejoinder[39]
and Sur-Rejoinder[40]
Molina submitted the affidavit of Geoffrey Martinez, who belied the reports of
Uy, Villena, Del Rosario, and the spouses Padiernos and Acosta.[41] He also appended the affidavits of Natividad
Gatchalian,[42]
San Miguel,[43]
Gatmaitan,[44]
and Magalso,[45]
who all disputed, in one way or another, Molina's alleged violations. To counter the imputations of conflict of
interest, Molina also alleged that Abia and Atty. Reyes were incorporators of Caritas,[46]
and that Villena had in her possession a license to sell Caritas products.[47] With regard to the declining sales output of
his region, Molina attributed the same to the Asian regional crisis that hit
the Philippines sometime in 1997. He
noted, however, that the same records revealed that despite the financial bane,
Metro VI still managed to be on top from 1998 up to 2000 in terms of its sales
relative to the other regions.
Molina
denied any liability for the car plan, claiming that he already settled the
obligation when PPI demanded full payment as, in fact, all the papers related
thereto, including the Release of Mortgage, were already in his possession.
In its
Sur-Rejoinder,[48]
PPI stressed its claim that Caritas was a business competitor, as may be
inferred from the benefits available under its health care agreement and the
pre-need contract of PPI. Particularly
with regard to the pension plan contract, it noted the following similarities: (a) Caritas also provides Term Life
Insurance, Accidental Death Insurance, Credit Life Insurance, and Waiver of
Installment Due to Disability;
(b) there are similarities in the provisions on contract price, grace
period, cancellation, reinstatement, and transfer and termination; and (c)
unlike other health care programs that provide a one-year coverage, renewable
every year thereafter, Caritas offers a continuous five year coverage and sells
the same in units payable in five-year installment basis, with maturity period
and guaranteed return of investment in the form of Full-Term Medical Expense
Fund computed at P10,000.00 for every unit purchased with increment of
10% yearly after the maturity period, which may be withdrawn in cash by its
member. It stressed that this was
similar to the pension program offered by PPI which was also sold in per unit
basis, payable by installment in certain number of years or lump sum payment,
and upon maturity also gives P10,000.00 pension benefit per unit
purchased by the plan holder. With respect to the alleged interest of Atty.
Reyes with Caritas, PPI adduced in evidence a Deed of Sale to prove that as
early as February 1999 he had already divested his stockholdings in Caritas.[49]
On November
18, 2002, Labor Arbiter Roma C. Asinas rendered a Decision[50]
dismissing the complaint and the counterclaims for lack of merit. The labor arbiter ruled that Molina was lawfully dismissed from
his employment for serious misconduct in office and fraud or willful breach of
trust and confidence. It declared that Molina’s mere denial of the charges
against him did not overthrow the overwhelming evidence against him tending to
show that he committed the allegations against him. Moreover, his wife was then
an agency manager of Caritas, and some PPI sales associates were with Caritas
because they were recruited by Molina. The labor arbiter also ruled that other
employees of respondent attested to the fact that they were being recruited and
enticed by the complainant to join Caritas. This act of pirating constituted
serious misconduct in office, fraud or willful breach of trust and confidence,
which are just causes for termination of employment under Article 282 of the
Labor Code, as amended. As such, PPI could not legally be compelled to continue
Molina’s employment due to breach of trust.
The labor arbiter likewise held that
Molina was afforded his right to due process, but that he refused to give an
answer to the charges leveled against him, and instead insisted that he be furnished
a copy of the alleged reports against him.
Since he was given ample opportunity to answer the charges and explain
his side during the investigation, and a formal or trial-type hearing is not at
all times essential, Molina’s right to due process was not violated. The labor
arbiter stressed that the requirements of due process are satisfied where the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of
the controversy at hand.[51]
Molina
appealed the decision to the NLRC, which rendered judgment in his favor. The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter and ordered Molina’s immediate reinstatement to his former position as Assistant Vice
President without demotion in rank and salary; and the payment of his backwages
from August 1, 2001 up to his actual reinstatement, and other accrued monetary
benefits. However, the NLRC denied all other claims for damages.[52]
According
to the NLRC, the charges of coming to the office under the influence of liquor
and making PPI reimburse the expenses already paid by Molina's co-employees
were not supported by the records. The “loss of trust and confidence” had no
factual basis since the alleged acts of Molina did not result to any loss in
favor of PPI.
Anent
Molina’s recruitment activities, the NLRC ratiocinated that PPI failed to show that Caritas was a
competitor of PPI. Caritas caters to the health care needs of its clients while
PPI to the pre-need (pension, educational, and memorial) requirements of its
plan holders. Any similarity between PPI
and Caritas’ extra features like term life insurance, accidental death
insurance, credit life insurance, and waiver of installment due to disability,
did not ipso facto make Caritas a
competitor of PPI. Thus, there was no
conflict of interest in Molina’s act of trying to recruit counselors for
Caritas to help his wife. Moreover, PPI
failed to establish that recruiting for Caritas affected Molina’s decisions in
the performance of his duties with PPI.
According to the NLRC, the drop in the sales and productivity of
complainant’s area of responsibility may be due to market forces and depressed
economic condition at that time; absent any clear and convincing proof, it
cannot be attributed to the alleged acts of Molina which constituted willful breach
of trust or confidence.[53]
PPI filed a
motion for reconsideration, and appended a Letter dated June 13, 2002 from the
SEC to Caritas, indicating that its HMO Plan was similar to the previous plans
offered by pre-need companies, hence, under the regulatory suspension of the
SEC;[54]
another letter of SEC ordering Caritas to immediately desist from selling its
HMO plan with the full term medial expense fund;[55]
and the letter of Caritas, through counsel, endorsing the objectionable
features of the HMO plan.[56]
The NLRC,
however, was not persuaded, and resolved to deny PPI’s motion in its Order
dated September 30, 2003.[57] On November 19, 2003, the NLRC declared its
Decision final and executory as of November 14, 2003.[58]
PPI filed a
Petition for Certiorari with the CA
for the nullification of the decision and resolution of the NLRC and the
reinstatement of the decision of the Labor Arbiter.[59]
On August
13, 2004, the CA rendered a decision reversing the Decision and Resolution of
the NLRC, and reinstating the November 18, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter.[60] Later, the CA denied Molina’s Motion for
Reconsideration[61]
in its Resolution dated September 27, 2004.[62]
The issues
for resolution are the following: whether the decision of the NLRC was already
final and executory when PPI filed its petition for certiorari in the CA; and whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed
decision and resolution.
On the
first issue, we find and so hold that the decision of the NLRC had become final
and executory when PPI filed its Petition for Certiorari in the CA. PPI
received a copy of the NLRC Decision on July 11, 2003 and filed the Motion for
Reconsideration thereof on July 18, 2003, which motion was denied on September
30, 2003. Under Rule VII, Section 2 of
the NLRC Omnibus Rules of Procedure, the decision of the NLRC becomes final and
executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the same. PPI received a copy of the NLRC decision on
November 30, 2003; hence, such decision became final and executory on December
3, 2003. Nonetheless, the Court ruled in
St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC[63]
that, although the 10-day period for finality of the NLRC decision may have
elapsed as contemplated in the last paragraph of Section 223 of the Labor Code,
the CA may still take cognizance of and resolve a petition for certiorari for the nullification of the
decision of the NLRC on jurisdictional and due process considerations. Indeed, the remedy of the aggrieved party
from an adverse decision of the NLRC is to timely file a motion for
reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and if
the motion is denied, such party may file a special civil action in accordance
with law and jurisprudence considering that these matters are inseparable in
resolving the main issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion.
The Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC act in quasi-judicial capacity in resolving cases after
hearing and on appeal, respectively. On the presumption that they have already
acquired expertise in their jurisdiction, which is confined on specific
matters, their findings of facts are oftentimes
accorded not only with respect but even finality if supported by substantial
evidence. However, in spite of the
statutory provision making “final” the decision of the NLRC, the Court has
taken cognizance of petitions challenging such decision where there is a clear
showing that there is want of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, violation
of due process, denial of substantial justice, or erroneous interpretation of
law.[64]
In this
case, the Labor Arbiter declared that there is substantial evidence on record
warranting the dismissal of petitioner as Assistant Vice President for serious
misconduct in office, fraud or willful breach of trust and confidence. The NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter and
reversed the latter’s findings. The CA,
for its part, concurred with the findings of the Labor Arbiter. In view of the discordance between the
findings of the Labor Arbiter and the CA on one hand, and the NLRC on the
other, there is a need for the Court to review the factual findings and the
conclusions based on the said findings. As this Court held in Diamond Motors Corporation v. Court of
Appeals:[65]
A disharmony between the factual findings of the Labor
Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission opens the door to a review
thereof by this Court. Factual findings
of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they
fail the test of arbitrariness.
Moreover, when the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission
contradict those of the labor arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its
equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the
questioned findings.[66]
Article 282
of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides:
Art. 282. Termination
by employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:
a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the
employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection
with his work;
b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his
duties;
c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of his duties
of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee
against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his
duly authorized representative; and
e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Misconduct
has been defined as improper or wrong conduct; the transgression of some
established and definite rule of action; a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, unlawful in character and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of
judgment. The misconduct to be serious
must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and
unimportant. Such misconduct, however,
serious, must nevertheless, be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute
just cause for his separation.[67]
The loss of
trust and confidence, in turn, must be based on the willful breach of the trust
reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice. A breach of trust is willful if it is done
intentionally, knowingly and purposely without justifiable excuse, as
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently.[68]
The Court
has laid down the guidelines for the application of the doctrine for loss of
confidence, thus:
1. the loss of confidence must not be simulated;
2. it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes
which are illegal, improper or unjustified;
3. it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
4. it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to
justify earlier action taken in bad faith; and
5. the employee involved holds a position of trust and
confidence.[69]
In Samson v. Court of Appeals,[70]
the Court enumerated the conditions for one to be considered a managerial
employee:
(1) Their primary duty consists of the management of
the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision
thereof;
(2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of
two or more employees therein;
(3) They have the authority to hire or fire other
employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to the
hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of
other employees are given particular weight.[71]