Loss of trust and confidence is a just cause for termination and the following requisites pursuant to Section 5.2 (e) of DOLE Department Order No. 147-15 must be present to terminate an employee for Loss of Confidence:
- There must be an act, omission or concealment;
- The act, omission or concealment justifies the loss of trust and confidence of the employer to the employee;
- The employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence;
- The loss of trust and confidence should not be simulated;
- It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified; and
- It must be genuine and not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.
The Supreme Court in the case of Digital Telecommunications Philippines v. Ayapana (G.R. No. 195614, 10 January 2018) stated that Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal of employees cover employees occupying a position of trust who are proven to have breached the trust and confidence reposed on them. Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidenceand not on the employer’s whims or caprices or suspicions. The act complained of must be work-relatedand 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 positions of responsibility, the 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 Supreme Court discussed that there are two classes of positions of trust. First, are the managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff. The second class consists of the fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence. (Alvarez v. Golden Tri Block Inc. G.R. No. 202158, 25 September 2013) The said managerial employee in this case, applies to the first class of position of trust as she has the position of Merchant Acquisition Manager.
As regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of her employer would suffice for her dismissal. (Alcantara v. The Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, G.R. No. 151349, 20 October 2010)
It is settled that there must only be some basis for such loss of confidence or that there is reasonable ground to believe for the misconduct and that the nature of her participation therein rendered her unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by her position. (Reyes-Rayel v. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings, Corp., G.R. No. 174893, 11 July 2012)
