In the case of JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo (G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020), the employees were charged of selling the broilers and broiler crates without the authority of the owner.

In response to the administrative charge, the employees contend that they were drivers/helpers and not holders of managerial or supervisory positions. Thus, they were allegedly not liable for loss of trust and confidence.

The Supreme Court (SC) held that loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal of employees covers employees occupying a position of trust who are proven to have breached the trust and confidence reposed on them.

In upholding the dismissal of employees the SC held that even on the premise that complaining employees were not occupying managerial or supervisory positions, they were, undoubtedly, holding positions of responsibility. As to their transgressions i.e., the unauthorized sale of broilers and broiler crates, the same are clearly work-related as they would not have been able to perpetrate the same were it not for their positions as drivers/helpers of JR Hauling.

In fine, the SC held that there is just cause for their dismissal from the service.

However, the SC ruled against the company as regards the due process of dismissal.

The SC held that the Implementing Rules in relation to Article 297 of the Labor Code provides for the procedure that must be observed in order to comply with the required procedural due process in dismissal cases, to wit:

1. a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.
2. b) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

The company and its officers admit that no written notice to explain and written notice of termination were served upon employees. Their defense, however, is premised on their assertion that it was the employees themselves which prevented JR Hauling from serving upon them the written notices when they failed to report for work after they were confronted by management of their alleged transgressions. We are not persuaded.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

At the outset, the employees involved were adamant in their pleadings before the LA and the NLRC that JR Hauling dismissed them from employment without notice and hearing and/or investigation when management allegedly displayed their pictures at the gate and barred them from entering the company premises. Interestingly, the management failed to categorically deny these allegations. It is worth noting that Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, which supplements the NLRC Rules of Procedure, provides that allegations which are not specifically denied are deemed admitted.

Even on the premise that it was the respondents who refused to report for work, the same does not exculpate the management from observing the basic principles of due process before the employees can be dismissed from employment.

To be clear, if the management team were adamant to give the employees the opportunity to explain their side and refute the accusations made against them, they should have served the notices personally to respondents, or where their whereabouts are unknown, such as in this case, by courier or registered

mail at their last known addresses indicated in their employee file maintained or in the possession of JR Hauling. This, however, the management failed to do.

In light of the above premises, there being just cause for the dismissal but considering the management’s non-compliance with the procedural requisites in terminating the employees’ employment, the SC held that the latter are entitled to nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00 each in line with existing jurisprudence.