CAÑETE, JR. VS NLRC & ROBINSONS LAND Sec. 2.08.
Breach by employee of the trust reposed in him by
management or by a company representative.
CORPORATION (RLC)
September 30, 1999
Labor Arbiter:
GR No. 130425
• Ruled in favor Cañete declaring his dismissal illegal, ordering
Bellosillo, J.
payment of his 13th month pay and back wages.
• The act prohibited by the company rules was the “act of
FACTS:
obtaining or accepting money or anything of value by entering
• Petitioner Cañete, Jr. was hired by RLC as Security Officer at
into an authorized agreement”, which Cañete did not do under
the Robinson’s Galleria Mall. RLC’s Shift Security Supervisor
the premises.
Balajadia caught a vendor, Ben Maniago, selling food to tenants
and employees inside the mall, in violation of RLC’s Rules and
NLRC: (On appeal of RLC)
regulations.
• Cañete’s dismissal was justified since he was tasked with the
• During interrogation, Ben Maniago claimed that he had the
enforcement of company rules and policies inside the mall and
permission of Cañete, Jr.. Ben Maniago stated that he was
having been proved to be remiss in his duty by his allowing
allowed to do so on the condition that he would give Cañete free
Maniego’s illicit activities, RLC had every reason to lose their
daily meals but later on modified his statement, saying that
trust and confidence in him.
Cañete would pay him during paydays.
• Cañete admitted ordering food from Ben Maniago but denied
ISSUE:
that he received the same for free. Ben Maniago had previously
• WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding
been apprehended but was released after he explained that the
that he was validly dismissed despite the failure of RLC to prove
food was intended for the mall’s low-wage sales personnel.
just cause
• Cañete pointed out that there were also other vendors at the
offices of RLC and their being prevalent, made him believe that
Petitioner’s Contention:
it was allowed.
• Under Sec. 2.04, he argues that the extension of credit to him
• RLC issued a memorandum terminating his services on the
can hardly be equated with “anything of value” as the rule
ground of loss of confidence and declaring that security is a
intends to deter employees from receiving “kickbacks” in terms
position of trust and confidence.
of money or anything of value from suppliers, clients, or
• Hence, Cañete filed a complaint before the NLRC for illegal
outsiders and doesn’t apply to vendors.
dismissal and other money claims. RLC answered that Cañete
• NLRC also gravely abused its discretion when it declared that he
violated Sec. 2.04 and 2.08 of the Employee Discipline Policies
was validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and
and Guidelines.
Sec. 2.04. Obtaining of accepting money or anything of value by confidence saying that his position of a security officer is not
entering into an arrangement(s) with suppliers, clients or other one of trust and confidence.
outsiders.
HELD:
• NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that
Cañete’s dismissal was justified. Sec. 2.04 was correctly
interpreted by the NLRC to encompass the extension of credit to
petitioner by Ben inasmuch as the latter could not have sold him
food on credit if he didn’t allow Ben to sell food to other
employees inside the mall.
• The extension of credit was the consideration for Ben Maniago’s
entry into the mall premises without being bothered by the mall
security. To limit the meaning of “anything of value” to
“kickbacks” alone would be to jeopardize company interests as
RLC clearly intended to prohibit its employees from receiving
money or any other consideration by entering into any and all
arrangements. Further, it would be a myopic interpretation of
said rule if vendors were to be excluded from the prohibition
since Sec. 2.04 clearly states “other outsiders.”
• On the issue of loss of trust and confidence, NO, Cañete was
not just a mere security guard but one of those seven in-house
security and safety officers of RLC and, as such, occupied a
position of trust and confidence. He was also assigned on cases
subject for investigations, thus, he will be acting as Security
Investigator on all crimes against persons or properties
committed therein. Hence, RLC had clearly placed reliance on
petitioner’s abilities.
• Therefore, the dismissal of Cañete, Jr. is with just cause.
