DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The July 10, 2013 Decision and November 4, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 126064 are AFFIR.t’1.ED. Petitioner Evelina E. Belarso’s dismissal is valid. No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?
APPELLANT WAS CAUGHT STEALING BELT BUCKLE, COMPANY PROPERTY. SHE WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF LOSS OF TRUST.
Further, while Belarso insists that the charge imputed against her defies logic and common experience, ti.’w records show that she had a propensity to violate company rules and regulations.
APPELLANT ALSO QUESTIONS THE AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED BY THE GUARDS AND HER CO-EMPLOYEES. BUT THESE WERE DEEMED TO CARRY WEIGHT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOTARIZED.
Belarso also assails the affidavits executed by the guards and her co[1]employees for being similarly worded a..nd executed on the same day, and for being dated two months after the incident. However, these do not automatically invalidate the contents of the affidavits. Being duly notarized, they carry with them the presu..’!lption of regularity aJJ.d authenticity which may be rebutted only by “strong, complete and conclusive proof.”57 This, Belarso was unable to present.
BELARSO ARGUES THAT THE PENALTY IS TOO HARSH CONSIDERING HER 34 YEARS OF SERVICE. LENGTH OF SERVICES IS NOT A BARGAINING CHIP.
Belarso finally argues that the penalty is too harsh considering her 34 years of service in the company. However, length of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. 59 Under the present circumstances, length of service only aggravates Belarso’s offense. First, she held a position of trust and confidence, overseeing the custody of the raw materials she tried to steal. As a supervisor, greater trust was placed on her by QHI. Second, her infraction affected the very essence of loyalty and honesty which all employees owe to their employers. It was serious, grave, and reflected adversely on her character.
AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO CONTINUE THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE IN WHOM THERE HAS BEEN A LEGITIMATE LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.
In fine, vVe find Belarso’s dismissal for loss of trust and confidence valid. Indeed, “[w]hile the State can regulate the right of an employer to select and discharge his or her employees, an. employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee in whom there has been a legitimate loss of trust and confidence.”60
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 