In the first assignment of error, Lynvil contends that the filing of a criminal case before the Office of the Prosecutor is sufficient basis for a valid termination of employment based on serious misconduct and/or loss of trust and confidence relying onNasipit Lumber Company v. NLRC.[29]
Nasipit is about a security guard who was charged with qualified theft which charge was dismissed by the Office of the Prosecutor. However, despite the dismissal of the complaint, he was still terminated from his employment on the ground of loss of confidence. We ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt of an employee's misconduct is not required when loss of confidence is the ground for dismissal. It is sufficient if the employer has "some basis" to lose confidence or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe or to entertain the moral conviction that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[30] It added that the dropping of the qualified theft charges against the respondent is not binding upon a labor tribunal.[31]
In Nicolas v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] we held that a criminal conviction is not necessary to find just cause for employment termination. Otherwise stated, an employee’s acquittal in a criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence of reasonable doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the employer’s interests.[33] In the reverse, the finding of probable cause is not followed by automatic adoption of such finding by the labor tribunals.
In other words, whichever way the public prosecutor disposes of a complaint, the finding does not bind the labor tribunal.
Thus, Lynvil cannot argue that since the Office of the Prosecutor found probable cause for theft the Labor Arbiter must follow the finding as a valid reason for the termination of respondents’ employment. The proof required for purposes that differ from one and the other are likewise different.
Nonetheless, even without reliance on the prosecutor’s finding, we find that there was valid cause for respondents’ dismissal.
In illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.[34]
Just cause is required for a valid dismissal. The Labor Code[35] provides that an employer may terminate an employment based on fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed on the employee. Such breach is considered willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must also be based on substantial evidence and not on the employer’s whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer. In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an employee is penalized.[36]
Breach of trust is present in this case.
We agree with the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals that the quantity of tubs expected to be received was the same as that which was loaded. However, what is material is the kind of fish loaded and then unloaded. Sameness is likewise needed.
We cannot close our eyes to the positive and clear narration of facts of the three witnesses to the commission of qualified theft. Jonathan Distajo, a crew member of the Analyn VIII, stated in his letter addressed to De Borja[37] dated 8 August 1998, that while the vessel was traversing San Nicolas, Cavite, he saw a small boat approach them. When the boat was next to their vessel, Alcovendas went inside the stockroom while Sebullen pushed an estimated four tubs of fish away from it. Ariola, on the other hand, served as the lookout and negotiator of the transaction. Finally, Bañez and Calinao helped in putting the tubs in the small boat. He further added that he received P800.00 as his share for the transaction. Romanito Clarido, who was also on board the vessel, corroborated the narration of Distajo on all accounts in his 25 August 1998 affidavit.[38] He added that Alcovendas told him to keep silent about what happened on that day. Sealing tight the credibility of the narration of theft is the affidavit[39] executed by Elorde Bañez dated 3 May 1999. Bañez was one of the dismissed employees who actively participated in the taking of the tubs. He clarified in the affidavit that the four tubs taken out of the stockroom in fact contained fish taken from the eight tubs. He further stated that Ariola told everyone in the vessel not to say anything and instead file a labor case against the management. Clearly, we cannot fault Lynvil and De Borja when it dismissed the employees.
The second to the fifth assignment of errors interconnect.
The nature of employment is defined in the Labor Code, thus:
Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
Lynvil contends that it cannot be guilty of illegal dismissal because the private respondents were employed under a fixed-term contract which expired at the end of the voyage. The pertinent provisions of the contract are:
xxxx
1. NA ako ay sumasang-ayon na maglingkod at gumawa ng mga gawain sang-ayon sa patakarang “por viaje” na magmumula sa pagalis sa Navotas papunta sa pangisdaan at pagbabalik sa pondohan ng lantsa sa Navotas, Metro Manila;
xxxx
1. NA ako ay nakipagkasundo na babayaran ang aking paglilingkod sa paraang “por viaje” sa halagang P__________ isang biyahe ng kabuuang araw xxxx.[40]
Lynvil insists on the applicability of the case of Brent School,[41] to wit:
Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in the present Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been, as already observed, to prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be secure in his tenure, the clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. Unless thus limited in its purview, the law would be made to apply to purposes other than those explicitly stated by its framers; it thus becomes pointless and arbitrary, unjust in its effects and apt to lead to absurd and unintended consequences.
Contrarily, the private respondents contend that they became regular employees by reason of their continuous hiring and performance of tasks necessary and desirable in the usual trade and business of Lynvil.
Jurisprudence,[42] laid two conditions for the validity of a fixed-contract agreement between the employer and employee:
First, the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
Second, it satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.[43]
Textually, the provision that: “NA ako ay sumasang-ayon na maglingkod at gumawa ng mga gawain sang-ayon sa patakarang “por viaje” na magmumula sa pagalis sa Navotas papunta sa pangisdaan at pagbabalik sa pondohan ng lantsa sa Navotas, Metro Manila” is for a fixed period of employment. In the context, however, of the facts that: (1) the respondents were doing tasks necessarily to Lynvil’s fishing business with positions ranging from captain of the vessel to bodegero; (2) after the end of a trip, they will again be hired for another trip with new contracts; and (3) this arrangement continued for more than ten years, the clear intention is to go around the security of tenure of the respondents as regular employees. And respondents are so by the express provisions of the second paragraph of Article 280, thus:
xxx Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
The same set of circumstances indicate clearly enough that it was the need for a continued source of income that forced the employees’ acceptance of the “por viaje” provision.
Having found that respondents are regular employees who may be, however, dismissed for cause as we have so found in this case, there is a need to look into the procedural requirement of due process in Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code. It is required that the employer furnish the employee with two written notices: (1) a written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; and (2) a written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.
From the records, there was only one written notice which required respondents to explain within five (5) days why they should not be dismissed from the service. Alcovendas was the only one who signed the receipt of the notice. The others, as claimed by Lynvil, refused to sign. The other employees argue that no notice was given to them. Despite the inconsistencies, what is clear is that no final written notice or notices of termination were sent to the employees.
The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the elements of [due] process in cases of employee's dismissal. The requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer's intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal. Upon the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer's charges against him and accordingly, to defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected.[44] Obviously, the second written notice, as indispensable as the first, is intended to ensure the observance of due process.
Applying the rule to the facts at hand, we grant a monetary award of P50,000.00 as nominal damages, this, pursuant to the fresh ruling of this Court in Culili v. Eastern Communication Philippines, Inc.[45] Due to the failure of Lynvil to follow the procedural requirement of two-notice rule, nominal damages are due to respondents despite their dismissal for just cause.
Given the fact that their dismissal was for just cause, we cannot grant backwages and separation pay to respondents. However, following the findings of the Labor Arbiter who with the expertise presided over the proceedings below, which findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we grant the 13th month pay and salary differential of the dismissed employees.
