Illegal Dismissal Due to Unproven Loss of Trust and Negligence

The Supreme Court decided a case in favor of a Cebuano professional, who was illegally dismissed by his employer due to an alleged loss of trust and confidence and gross and habitual neglect of duty which management failed to prove by competent evidence. The Cebuano stands to get millions in damages, backwages, and separation pay.

This is a lesson to all employers especially in times of crisis like this. It is easy to charge one’s employee with the vast powers and resources in the hands of management. But it is difficult to prove management’s allegations. The law, the controlling jurisprudence, the labor tribunals, and most especially the Supreme Court will never allow an innocent employee to lose his means of livelihood based on mere speculations and conjectures of the employer. This is also a lesson to all employees: If you are a victim of injustice, be prepared to fight for your right. At the end, justice shall prevail in our rule of law, where right is might.

This is the case of Lufthansa Technik Philippines, Inc. vs. Roberto Cuizon, GR 184452, decided by the highest court of the land on February 12, 2020. Cuizon worked for PAL for 32 years as a maintenance engineer. When PAL’s technical services were outsourced to Lufthansa, Cuizon was absorbed by that foreign-owned firm. In 2005, he was dismissed on two grounds; loss of trust and confidence, and gross negligence. The labor arbiter dismissed his case, and the dismissal was affirmed by the NLRC. In 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the labor tribunals and ordered payment of backwages and separation pay.

The company went to the Supreme Court, and in February this year, the High Court decided in favor of Cuizon. The court ruled that management failed to prove the elements of loss of trust and confidence. Management also failed to establish that Cuizon was guilty of negligence to warrant his outright termination of employment. The Supreme Court, in its well-written decision, gave a lucid and very convincing discourse on the principles and policies under the law and jurisprudence governing termination based on just cause. Those who are going to take the Bar next year should read and understand well this masterful ruling.

I just wonder why the labor arbiter and the NLRC did not discern the finer points discussed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. With all due respect to them, it might not have been their fault. Sometimes, the lawyers who handled the case might have failed to argue the case well before the lower tribunals. When I was a labor arbiter and DOLE undersecretary myself, I deemed it my duty to scrutinize the facts with utmost diligence, and apply the law with much reverence to the spirit and philosophy behind the employee’s security of tenure. DOLE and NLRC decision-makers should not forget that what is at stake here is the employee’s source of living.

Management’s prerogative to discipline and dismiss should be taken with much caution precisely because prior to dismissal, management is the accuser, the prosecutor and the judge all rolled into one. A worker is weak, alone, and without help while the company is much stronger, with lots of money and influence. Here, Mr. Cuizon lost his bread and butter from 2005 to 2020. He fought for his right and won, but for too long and justice was still delayed. We should all learn from this case then.