JENNIFER C. LAGAHIT vs.

PACIFIC CONCORD CONTAINER LINES/MONETTE

CUENCA (Branch Manager)
G.R. No. 177680. January 13, 2016

SUBJECT MATTER : RESIGNATION FROM EMPLOYMENT

EMPLOYEES VESTED WITH TRUST & CONFIDENCE
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

FACTS:
Respondent Pacific Concord Container Lines/ Monette Cuenca –Branch
manager ( Pacific Concord) a domestic corporation engaged in cargo forwarding ,
hired Petitioner Jennifer Lagahit (LAGAHIT) as an Account Marketing Assistant
who was later on promoted as Sales Manager. On November 08 2002 Pacific
Concord branch manager Monette Cuenca (CUENCA) informed LAGAHIT through
text messages saying “TODAY U R OFFICIALLY NT CONNECTED WITH US.” , another
text message was also sent to LAHAHIT’s husband and on the same day Pacific
Concord disseminated notices , flyers and memos informing their clients that
LAGAHIT is no longer connected with them at the same time Pacific Concord caused
the publication of the notice to the public in the Sunstar Daily issue.
On November 13 LAGAHIT sent a letter to Pacific Concord indicating that she
has accepted her fate and demanding for all benefits due to her under the law. In a
letter response of Pacific Concord through CUENCA it stated that the company is
holding the release of the monies due to LAGAHIT until they can collect the alleged
uncollected accounts of LAGAHIT.
Petitioner LAGAHIT then filed a complaint for constructive dismissal in the
Regional Arbitrarion Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) .
The Labor Arbiter (LA) finding that respondents were not able to prove that the
petitioner committed acts constituting betrayal of trust and that they had informed
her prior to her dismissal of the offenses she allegedly committed and owing to the
illegality of the dismissal , they are liable for backwages and separation pay. The
decision of the LA was affirmed by the NLRC.
On appeal to the CA it ruled that the termination of LAGAHIT was valid.
LAGAHIT deliberately committed successive acts which translated blatant
disloyalty and willful breach of trust reposed upon her by Pacific Concord which are
obviously detrimental to the material interest of the company. That LAGAHIT is not
an ordinary rank-and-file employee her function is reposed with trust and
confidence which she betrays constituting a willful breach of trust consequentially
resulting to Pacific Cargo’s loss of confidence in LAGAHIT’s loyalty and efficacy
Hence this appeal.

ISSUE/s:
1. Whether or not petitioner resigned from her employment?
2. Whether or not the position held by petitioner is one vested with trust
and confidence ?
3. Whether or not petitioner have been validly dismissed on the grounds of
loss of trust and confidence?

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that Respondents insistence that petitioner resigned
was bereft of factual support. A valid resignation is a voluntary act of an employee
who finds herself in a situation where she believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and that she has no other choice but
to associate herself from employment. The resignation must be unconditional and
with a clear intention to relinquish the position. The facts and circumstances before
and after the petitioners severance from her employment on November o8, 2002
did not show her resolute intention to relinquish her job. Her November 13, 2002
letter instead presented her as a defenseless employee unjustly terminated for
unknown reasons.
There are two classes of employees vested with trust and confidence. The
first class belong to managerial employees or those vested with the powers or
prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer , suspend , lay-
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such
managerial actions. The second class includes those who in the normal and routine
exercise of their functions regularly handle significant amounts of money or
property. Her position as a sales manager did not immediately make petitioner a
managerial employee. The actual work that she performed not her job title
determined whether she was a managerial employee vested with trust and
confidence. Her position as sales manager came under the second class. Although
the mere existence of the basis for believing that the managerial employee breached
the trust reposed by the employer would normally suffice to justify a dismissal, we
should desist from applying this norm against the petitioner who was not a
managerial employee.
To justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer must as a rule prove
that the dismissal was for just cause and that the employee was afforded due
process prior to dismissal. As a complementary principle the employer has the onus
of proving the validity of the dismissal with clear, accurate , consistent and
convincing evidence.
In cases of unlawful dismissal the employee must first establish by
substantial evidence the fact of dismissal from her employment . In this case the
petitioner proved overt acts committed by respondents in abruptly terminating her
employment through the text messages sent by CUENCA as well as the notices
distributed to the clients and published in the Sun Star.
The Supreme Court grants the petition, reverse the decision of the CA and
reinstates the decision of the NLRC with modification as to the monetary awads.