G.R. No.

183129, May 30, 2016

FACTS:
Respondent Ma. Socorro R. Villapando, began working as a Financial Advisor for petitioner in1995. On
October 11, 2000, she was eventually promoted to Division Head/Senior Sales Manager. On November
4, 2002, however, her employment was terminated by Cocoplans, through its President, Caesar T.
Michelena, on the alleged ground that she was deliberately influencing people to transfer to another
company thereby breaching the trust and losing the confidence given to her by Cocoplans.5
Consequently, Villapando filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that she was dismissed without
the just cause mandated by law. Villapando filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that she was
dismissed without the just cause mandated by law. On the other hand, respondents allege that they
have discovered that the Complainant has instigated the Sales Force of COCOPLANS in her area of
responsibility, to either slow down sales production or completely stop selling, then join a mass
resignation and transfer to a competitor company which was allegedly much better than COCO PLANS.
Attached to the position paper is the notice to the Complainant dated October 4, 2002 regarding the
meeting scheduled by the Committee on Employee Discipline setting the date, October 10, 2002 for
Complainant to give her explanation, and putting her on preventive suspension for three (3) weeks.

On January 30, 2004, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Villapando finding that she was illegally
terminated from her employment.1wphi1 According to the Labor Arbiter, the initial investigation
conducted by the Committee on Employee Discipline was merely to determine the truth about the
allegations of Villapando in her resignation letter that she was being forced to resign. However, the
NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter in its Decision holding that the matter of resignation is a non-
issue as the termination of Villapando's employment was affected for reasons other than her
resignation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent was terminated for just cause

HELD:
Settled is the rule that to constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two (2) requisites must
concur, viz.: (a) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an opportunity to
be heard and defend himself; and (b) the dismissal must be for a valid cause, as provided in Article
282 of the Labor Code, or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284 of the same
Code. 28 In the case before the Court, it is already undisputed that petitioners duly afforded Villapando
the opportunity to be heard and defend herself, thereby complying with the first requisite. Article
282( c) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment for fraud or willful
breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.
As firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence, loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination
of employment, is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater
trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected.

In the instant case, the Court does not find the evidence presented by petitioners to be substantial
enough to discharge the burden of proving that Villapando was, indeed, dismissed for just cause. The
Court is of the view that a single Joint Affidavit of doubtful probative value can hardly be considered as
substantial. Had petitioners provided the Court with other convincing proof, apart from said Joint
Affidavit, that Villapando had, indeed, wilfully influenced her subordinates to transfer to a competing
company, their claims of loss of confidence could have been sustained. As the Court now sees it,
petitioners terminated the services of Villapando on the mere basis of the Joint Affidavit executed by
Ms. Perez and Mr. Sandoval, which, as previously discussed, is put in doubt by conflicting evidence.
Hence, in the absence of sufficient proof, the Court finds that petitioners failed to discharge the onus of
proving the validity of Villapando' s dismissal.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
February 4, 2008 and Resolution dated May 27, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88759
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners Cocoplans, Inc. and Caesar T. Michelena are hereby
ORDERED to PAY respondent Ma. Socorro R. Villapando the following: (I) backwages computed from the
date of her dismissal on November 4, 2002 up to the finality of this Decision; (2) separation pay in lieu
of reinstatement computed from the time of her engagement up to the finality of this Decision; and (3)
legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum of the total monetary awards, computed from the finality
of this Decision until full satisfaction thereof.