G.R. No. 131653 ; March 26, 2001
ROBERTO GONZALES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roberto Gonzales was a Route Manager and a concessionaire/dealer for respondent Pepsi Cola Products, Philippines, Inc. (PCPPI). As a dealer, he had a credit line and was entitled to a “concession” (a cash benefit) for meeting sales quotas. In November 1992, he purchased products on credit worth P116,182.00 and issued a post-dated check as payment. Before this check matured, he issued a second post-dated check and pressured a subordinate salesman, Gerry Alhambra, to issue an official receipt for it, contrary to company policy which only allowed receipts for cash or currently dated checks. This caused a discrepancy in Alhambra’s remittances. Gonzales later issued a third check with an improperly signed receipt.
Subsequently, PCPPI approved part of Gonzales’s concession claim (P91,000.00), which he applied to his debt along with other payments, fully settling it with an excess. However, based on the irregularities in the transaction, PCPPI subjected him to an administrative investigation. He was later dismissed on grounds of loss of trust and confidence and violation of company rules pertaining to fraud and dishonesty.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter and upholding Gonzales’s dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee holding a position of trust and confidence, such as a Route Manager. The legal logic requires that the breach of trust must be willful, founded on clearly established facts, and the employee must be afforded due process.
Here, Gonzales, by compelling a subordinate to issue an improper official receipt to make it appear his debt was settled, committed a willful act of dishonesty that eroded the trust inherent in his managerial role. His actions directly violated company rules against fraudulent transactions. The fact that he eventually paid his debt in full does not absolve him of the dishonest means employed. The employer’s loss of confidence was reasonable and justified. Due process was satisfied through the administrative investigations where he was heard. Therefore, his dismissal was legal, and the NLRC correctly reversed the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal. The petition was dismissed.