FUJITSU COMPUTER PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and ERNESTO
ESPINOSA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, VICTOR DE GUZMAN, and
ANTHONY P. ALVAREZ, respondents
GR No. 158232 | March 31, 2005
Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr.
Doctrine
Misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause
for his separation. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious;
(b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit
to continue working for the employer
FACTS: Victor de Guzman (R) (managerial employee) began working for Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation
of the Philippines (FCPP) on September 21, 1997 as Facilities Section Manager. Allan Alvarez (R), on the other
hand, was employed as a Senior Engineer on April 21, 1998. He was assigned at the Facilities Department under
the supervision of De Guzman. Both respondents were dismissed: (1) De Guzman allegedly caused the anomalous
disposal of steel purlins which amounted to loss of confidence or breach of willful trust; whereas, (2) Alvarez was
allegedly guilty of serious misconduct for sending an “anonymous” and premeditated/malicious email to several
employees and officers expressing his sympathy towards De Guzman’s case. LA ruled in favor of FCPP holding
that the termination of said employees was justified and that they were not denied due process (i.e. adequately
informed of the charges and were required to explain). NLRC affirmed. CA reversed. Contrary to the findings of
the LA, De Guzman did not betray the trust reposed on him by his employer, as the transaction involving the sale
of scrap steel purlins was between Sta. Rosa (Church) and Saro’s. On the part of Alvarez, CA ruled that his act of
“sympathizing and believing in the innocence of De Guzman and expressing his views” was not of such grave
character as to be considered serious misconduct which warranted the penalty of dismissal.
ISSUE: Whether or not they were illegally dismissed
RULING: YES.
De Guzman’s actuations do not amount to willful breach of trust and confidence.
It was the building contractor and not petitioner Victor de Guzman who determined whether the metals are scrap
metals. Hence, the assertion of the private respondents that petitioner Victor de Guzman prematurely declared the
metal [purlins] as scrap materials is without basis. Moreover, the fact is that as per the Garbage Collection
Agreement dated January 15, 1999, the scrap metals in the premises of petitioner FCPP were regularly bought by
Saro’s. Hence, after such scrap materials are weighed, loaded onto a truck and carried out of the company premises,
the petitioner FCPP can no longer be considered the owner thereof, and ceases to exercise control over such
property. Saro’s, as the new owner of the scrap materials in question, including the steel purlins, was free to
contract with anyone as it wished. At most, respondent De Guzman was merely recommending a buyer for such
scrap materials, an act which could hardly be considered as deserving of such a harsh penalty as dismissal from
employment.
Dismissal of respondent Alvarez from employment for gross misconduct was illegal.
There is no showing that the sending of such e-mail message had any bearing or relation on respondent Alvarez’s
competence and proficiency in his job. To reiterate, in order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify
dismissal under the law, the act must have been done in relation to the performance of his duties as would show him
to be unfit to continue working for his employer.
Notes:
Loss of Trust and Confidence
To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and
founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without
justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. It must
rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the
employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately
used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to
constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee
concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer. The Court had the occasion to reiterate in Nokom v.
National Labor Relations Commission the guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidence: a. loss of
confidence should not be simulated; b. it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or
unjustified; c. it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and d. it must
be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.
Serious Misconduct
Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful 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. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for
dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) must show that
the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. Indeed, an employer may not be compelled to
continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer’s
interest.
