Research - Loss of Trust and Confidence
Research - Loss of Trust and Confidence
Research - Loss of Trust and Confidence
There are two (2) types of positions in which trust and confidence are
reposed by the employer, namely, managerial employees and fiduciary rank-
and-file employees. Managerial employees are considered to occupy
positions of trust and confidence because they are “entrusted with
confidential and delicate matters.”
The second condition that must be satisfied is the presence of some basis for
the loss of trust and confidence. This means that “the employer must
establish the existence of an act justifying the loss of trust and confidence.” 3
A managerial employee may be dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence, by mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee
has breached the trust of his employer. Hence, in the case of managerial
employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient
that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the
employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is
responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation
therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his
position.
Clearly from the foregoing, it can be deduced that ____ held a managerial
position and, therefore, enjoyed the full trust and confidence of his
superiors, As a managerial employee, he was “bound by more exacting work
ethics” and should live up to this high standard of responsibility.
1
Caoile v. National Labor Relations Commission, 359 Phil 399, 406 (1998) [Per J.
Quisumbing, First Division].
2
Baguio Central University v. Gallente, 722 Phil. 494, 505 (2013) [Per J. Brion, Second
Division].
3
Ibid.
It was established that when ____ created and invited his co-employees in a
group message using the skype account paid and provided by the employer
and during work hours, he had already breached the employer’s trust. His
explanation that he together with his co-employees were merely expressing
their honest opinions could not prevail over his unnecessary comments that
gives the employer an impression that they are planning to sabotage the
business through resignation.
Simply put, his act was without justification, if not, a lame excuse. For this
transgression, Respondent was placed in a difficult position of withdrawing
the trust and confidence that it reposed on the complainant and eventually
deciding to end his employment. “Unlike other causes for dismissal, trust in
an employee, once lost is difficult, if not impossible, to regain.” 4
Although, it may be true that Respondent did not sustain damage or loss on
account of complainant’s action, this is not reason enough to absolve him
from the consequence of his misdeed. The fact that an employer did not
suffer pecuniary damage will not obliterate the complainant’s betrayal of
trust and confidence reposed on him by his employer. 5
4
Matis v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 206629, 14 September 2016.
5
United South Dockhandlers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 335 Phil. 76, 81-
82 (1997).