In the case of a managerial employee who is faced with investigation for willful breach of trust, he gives up the guarantee considering the rule that an employee who is reposed with trust and confidence can be easily dismissed for willful breach of such trust given the proven circumstances and substantial evidence.

While the rule in the case of Villanueva vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Rolia Villanueva vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 129413, July 27, 1998.) espouses that a rank and file employee who ascends to managerial position sheds off certain guaranties of his lower position, he must still be accorded the rights in relation to his security of tenure.

Thus, the right of the management to dismiss must be balanced against the managerial employee’s right to security of tenure which is not one of the guaranties he gives up.

Although the standards for their dismissal are less stringent, the loss of trust and confidence must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the managerial employee’s separation from the company. Substantial evidence is of critical importance and the burden rests on the employer to prove from the company.

Due to its subjective nature, it can easily be concocted by an abusive employer and used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified. In the termination of managerial employees based

on loss of trust and confidence, the employer’s evidence must clearly and convincingly establish the facts and incidents upon which the loss of confidence may fairly be made to rest.

One of the nightmares of a manager is to be held responsible for acts which he never committed or which he was not part of. But things like that happen due to his command responsibility.

His liability in such instance boils down to his neglect of duty. Thus, on the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, managerial employees may be held liable for negligence in the performance of their managerial duties, unless they can positively show that they were not involved. Their position requires a high degree of responsibility that necessarily includes unearthing of fraudulent and irregular activities.

In a case where a manager for the Healthcare Division was charged for her failure to report the anomalous transaction within her division involving fictitious invoices, her dismissal was upheld on account of command responsibility. Her duties, among others, were to detect fraudulent activities and irregularities within her Division and thereafter report the same to management.

Her position demands that she manage, control and take responsibility over activities in her department. It requires a high degree of responsibility that necessarily includes unearthing of fraudulent and irregular activities. This, she

failed to do. Her ‘bare, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated denial’ of her participation in the anomalies does not prove her innocence nor disprove her alleged guilt. On the contrary, such denial or failure to rebut the serious accusations hurled against her militate against her innocence and strengthened the adverse averments of the company.

The ordinary rule is that one who has knowledge peculiarly within his control, and refuses to divulge it, cannot complain if the court puts the most unfavorable construction upon his silence, and infers that a disclosure would have shown the fact to be as claimed by the opposing party.

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

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements