ADELINO FELIX VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and REPUBLIC ASAHI GLASS CORPORATION

ADELINO FELIX

VS

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
REPUBLIC ASAHI GLASS CORPORATION
442 SCRA 465 (2004)

Substantial evidence must support the dismissal of an employee on the ground of “loss of trust and confidence”.

Petitioner Adelino Felix was hired by the Republic Asahi Glass Corporation as a Cadet Engineer. Sometime in 1992, Felix was offered a chance to train and qualify for the position of Assistant Manager but he declined and waived the opportunity to the one who was next-in-line. By Felix’s claim, he was asked by certain officers of the company to resign and accept a separation package, failing which he would be terminated for loss of confidence.

Felix, however, refused to resign and accept separation benefits, drawing the officers of the company to, by his claim, start harassing him. Thus, he was not given work and another employee, Mr. Elmer Tacata, was assigned to take over his post and function. Unable to withstand the manner by which he was being treated by the company, Felix, through his lawyer, warned the Republic Asahi Glass Corporation about the illegality of its actions. Felix attributed the company’s harassment against him to his being a member of the supervisory union then being formed. The Republic Asahi Glass Corporation subsequently terminated Felix’x services for loss of trust and confidence.

Felix thus lodged a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Felix’s complaint. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed Felix’s complaint for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals likewise dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the company’s loss of trust and confidence is founded on facts established by substantial and competent evidence

HELD:
The rule is that high respect is accorded to the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, more so in the case at bar where both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC share the same findings. The rule is not however, without exceptions one of which is when the findings of fact of the labor officials on which the conclusion was based are not supported by substantial evidence. The same is true when it is perceived that far too much is concluded, inferred or deducted from bare facts adduced in evidence.

The employer’s evidence, although not required to be of such degree as that required in criminal cases i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt, must be substantial – it must clearly and convincingly establish the facts upon which loss of confidence in the employee may be made to rest. In the case at bar, the company failed to discharge this burden.

Felix was hastily dismissed by ASAHI as the former was not given adequate time to prepare for his defense but was preemptorily dismissed even without any formal investigation or hearing. It is settled that where the employee denies the charges against him, a hearing is necessary to thresh out any doubt. The failure of the company to give petitioner, who denied the charges against him, the benefit of a hearing and an investigation before his termination constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process.

It bears emphasis that the matter of determining whether the cause for dismissal is justified on the ground of loss of confidence cannot be left entirely to the employer. Impartial tribunals do not only rely on the statement made by the employer that there is ―loss of confidence‖ unless duly proved or sufficiently substantiated.

At all events, even if all the allegations are true, they are not of such nature to merit the penalty of dismissal given the 14 years in service of Felix. Dismissal is unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges. This rule on proportionality – that the penalty imposed should commensurate to the gravity of the offense – has been observed in a number of cases.

There being no basis in law or in fact justifying Felix’s dismissal on the basis of loss of trust and confidence, his dismissal was illegal.