Unauthorized taking of supplies ground for termination

DearPAO,

My cousin worked as a nurse supervisor. He was terminated last February after being notified to unauthorized use of some hospital supplies. He said he only took tissue paper and other non-medical supplies that he needed when her an out of personal supply. He intended to replace these but somehow forgot to. He said the basis of his termination is“breach of trust .” Is it really possible for him to be terminated if his position was not a confidential employee where trust is vital?

Panda

Dear Panda,

There are several just causes for termination, one of which is the employee’s willful breach of the trust reposed in him by his employer. Pursuant to Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Philippines: “An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: xxx(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; x xx”

You mentioned that your cousin worked as a nurse supervisor and he admitted to have taken non-medical supplies owned by the hospital. It seems that such taking was unauthorized, for which reason he was terminated. Taking these into consideration, we believe that your cousin may indeed be validly terminated because it appears that he is not simply a rank-and-file employee. Being a nurse supervisor, he holds a position of trust which allows him to exercise prerogatives to perform managerial actions, unless there is proof that his title as a “nurse supervisor” is a mere nomenclature and he does not have prerogatives to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees and the like. Corollary, the unauthorized use or misappropriation of property owned by his employer may be deemed as a violation of the trust reposed in him.

The Supreme Court in the case of CadavasvsCA (GR 2287V5, March 20, 20Q9, Ponente: Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta) upheld the dismissal of Cadavas, who was a nurse supervisor, for the unauthorized taking of medicines and hospital supplies. The Court ruled:

“Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate an employment for “[f]raud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.”

“The requisites for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence are: 1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. In addition to these, such loss of trust relates to the employee’s performance of duties.

“BristolMyersSquibb(Phils.) Inc.v.Baban explained the two classes of positions of trust, thus: “There are two (2) classes of positions of trust.

The first class consists of managerial employees. They are defined as those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions.

The second class consists of cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc. x xx

“In this case, petitioner Cadavas

was a managerial employee. Petitioner was the Nurse Supervisor of the OR-DR, Neonatal ICU, and Hemodialysis Departments at the time of the incident; hence, she held a position of trust and confidence as she managed the said departments, having been tasked with the scheduling of the staff nurses within her departments and overseeing the quality of bedside care being delivered by her staff.

“To reiterate, the second requisite for dismissal is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary.” (Emphases supplied)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.