Norkis Digest

7/25/2019 Norkis Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/norkis-digest 1/4

NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. AND ALEX D. BUAT, Petitioners, vs

DELFIN S. DESCALLAR, Respondent.

G.R. No. !"#"", $%r&' (, #)#

FACTS:

Respondent Delfin S. Descallar was assigned at the Iligan City Branch of

petitioner Norkis Distributors, Inc., a distributor of a!aha !otorcycles. "e

beca!e a regular e!ployee and was pro!oted as Branch #anager. "e acted

as branch ad!inistrator and had super$ision and control of all the e!ployees.

Respondent was also responsible for sales and collection

In a !e!orandu!, petitioners re%uired respondent to e&plain in writing within

'( hrs why he should not be penali)ed or ter!inated for being absent without

official lea$e *+-/ or rendering under0ti!e ser$ice on certain dates.

Respondent e&plained that he reported to the office on those dates, but he

either went to the bank or followed0up on prospects. +s he was still within city

li!its, he did not file any official lea$e or tra$el record.

Norkis conducted an in$estigation. 1inding that respondent was not able to

pro$e that he was really in the branch or on official tra$el, petitioners

suspended hi! for 23 days without pay. +ccording to petitioners, respondent

ad!itted during the in$estigation that he used co!pany ti!e for his personal

affairs, but only for a few hours and not the whole day.

hile respondent was still suspended, Norkis also found that Respondent

co!!itted so!e inappropriate and irregular acts such as une&plained low

perfor!ance of his branch, !issing funds, unauthori)ed disburse!ent of

funds, irregular transactions.



4etitioners ter!inated respondent5s ser$ices for loss of trust and confidence

and gross inefficiency. Respondent filed a co!plaint for illegal suspension and

illegal dis!issal. + fa$ored respondent. 4etitioners appealed to NRC. NRC

re$ersed the +5s decision and found respondent to ha$e been $alidly

dis!issed. 6he NRC, howe$er, upheld the +5s finding that petitioners are

liable to respondent for unpaid wages. Respondent filed #R. It was denied so

he filed with the C+ a petition for certiorari. C+ reinstated with !odification the

decision of the +. Respondent filed a !otion for clarification as to the awards

of separation pay and back wages while petitioners filed #R. C+ issued a

Resolution stating that as regards respondent5s !otion for clarification, the

separation pay and back wages shall be reckoned fro! the ti!e respondent

was illegally suspended until finality of its earlier Decision. 6he C+ likewise

denied petitioners5 #R. "ence, petitioners filed the present petition.

ISSUE:

as the failure of respondent to reach his !onthly sales %uota a $alid basis

for loss of trust and confidence7

RULING:

N-. oss of trust and confidence as a ground for ter!ination of an e!ployee

under +rticle 8(8 of the abor Code re%uires that the breach of trust be willful,

!eaning it !ust be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without

9ustifiable e&cuse. 6he basic pre!ise for dis!issal on the ground of loss of

confidence is that the e!ployee concerned holds a position of trust and

confidence. It is the breach of this trust that results in the e!ployer5s loss of

confidence in the e!ployee.



"ere, there is no %uestion that as petitioners5 Branch #anager in Iligan City,

respondent was holding a position of trust and confidence. "e was

responsible for the ad!inistration of the branch, and e&ercised super$ision

and control o$er all the e!ployees. "e was also incharge of sales and

collection.

In ter!ination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the e!ployer to show that

the dis!issal is for a 9ust and $alid cause and failure to do so would

necessarily !ean that the dis!issal was illegal. 6he %uantu! of proof

re%uired in deter!ining the legality of an e!ployee5s dis!issal is only

substantial e$idence. C+ correctly held that petitioners failed to discharge this

burden.

1ailure to reach the !onthly sales %uota cannot be considered an intentional

and un9ustified act of respondent a!ounting to a willful breach of trust on his

part that would call for his ter!ination based on loss of confidence. 6his is not

the willful breach of trust and confidence conte!plated in +rticle 8(8*c/ of the

abor Code. ow sales perfor!ance could be attributed to se$eral factors

which are beyond respondent5s control. 6o be a $alid ground for an

e!ployee5s dis!issal, loss of trust and confidence !ust be based on a willful

breach. 6o repeat, a breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and

purposely, without 9ustifiable e&cuse.

4etitioners ha$ing failed to establish by substantial e$idence any $alid ground

for ter!inating respondent5s ser$ices, we uphold the finding of the abor

+rbiter and the C+ that respondent was illegally dis!issed.

+n illegally dis!issed e!ployee is entitled to two reliefs: back wages and

reinstate!ent. 6he two reliefs pro$ided are separate and distinct. In instances



where reinstate!ent is no longer feasible because of strained relations

between the e!ployee and the e!ployer, separation pay is granted. 6he

nor!al conse%uences of respondent5s illegal dis!issal, then, are

reinstate!ent without loss of seniority rights, and pay!ent of back wages

co!puted fro! the ti!e co!pensation was withheld fro! hi! up to the date

of actual reinstate!ent. here reinstate!ent is no longer $iable as an option,

separation pay e%ui$alent to one !onth salary for e$ery year of ser$ice should

be awarded as an alternati$e. 6he pay!ent of separation pay is in addition to

pay!ent of back wages.

6he C+ !erely clarified the period of pay!ent of back wages and separation

pay up to the finality of its decision !odifying the +5s decision. In $iew of the

!odification of !onetary awards in the abor +rbiter5s decision, the ti!e

fra!e for the pay!ent of back wages and separation pay is accordingly

!odified to the finality of the C+ decision.

"R1-R, the petition for re$iew on certiorari is DNID.

Documents

Norkis Digest