G.R. No. 211105 February 20, 2019
RUBY C. DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner vs. CW MARKETING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/KENNETH TUNG, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Ruby Del Rosario was a Sales Supervisor for respondent CW Marketing. In October 2010, the company received a report from HSBC that falsified payslips and IDs, indicating higher positions and salaries for certain employees, were submitted with credit card applications. An IT investigation traced the source of the tampered documents to the computer assigned exclusively to Del Rosario. The company issued her a Notice to Explain for alleged participation in the falsification. Del Rosario denied involvement, explaining in her written responses that while she was the only one formally given access to the scanner and USB port, she allowed her subordinates to use her computer and the connected printer/scanner for work purposes, and she could not monitor them at all times.
CW Marketing issued a second notice, charging her with negligence/misuse of company property and allowing unauthorized use of equipment, citing CCTV footage showing her presence on the floor while others used her computer. After an administrative inquiry where she admitted her computer was her accountability and that she allowed others to use it, she was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal, but the NLRC and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the dismissal valid.

ISSUE

Was the dismissal of petitioner Ruby Del Rosario on the ground of loss of trust and confidence valid?

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal of a managerial employee, the breach of trust must be willful, founded on clearly established facts, and the misconduct must be work-related. Del Rosario, as a supervisor, held a position of trust and responsibility. The company invested her with exclusive access and control over her computer and connected equipment. The falsified documents were conclusively traced to her computer. Her own admissions established that she knowingly allowed unauthorized persons to use her computer despite company reminders that only supervisors should have access. This constituted gross negligence in safeguarding company property entrusted to her. Her failure to exercise the necessary vigilance and precaution over her assigned equipment, which became the instrument for fraud against the company and a third-party bank, amply justified the employer’s loss of confidence in her competence and integrity. The dismissal was based on a just cause and complied with procedural due process, as she was given the opportunity to explain and defend herself.