[ G.R. No. 200658.
June 23, 2021 ]
SALVACION A. LAMADRID, PETITIONER, VS. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED AND VIVIAN LO,
RESPONDENTS
Problem:
Petitioner Salvacion A. Lamadrid was hired by respondent company as a cabin crew, holding the position
of a Senior Purser. In 2007, a 1.5-liter Evian water bottle and a pile of magazines were confiscated from
her. Lamadrid claimed that she brought the items as her own. Respondent, however, dismissed her on
the grounds of serious misconduct by removing company property without authorization. Lamadrid then
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent.
Questions:
1) Whether Lamadrid’s position as a Senior Purser is imbued with trust and confidence
2 Whether Lamadrid fraudulently and willfully committed acts or omission in breach of the trust reposed
in her/him by Cathay Pacific
3) Whether Lamadrid’s termination was commensurate to the infraction committed
4) Whether Cathay Pacific exercised its management prerogative of dismissing Lamadrid in good faith
Answer:
1) YES. We hold that indeed the nature of Lamadrid's position was imbued with trust and confidence.
She had in her custody and control company properties which are of significant value, and she also had
the responsibility of informing the In-flight Service Manager whether there was defective or missing
equipment. Moreover, she had oversight over two to four cabin crew members assigned in her section
of the aircraft and rated their performance for promotion purposes. She had been entrusted with the
custody and control of valuable company properties in the normal and routine exercise of her duties.
2) YES. Article 297 [282] of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for dismissal, to wit: (c) Fraud or
willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative.
There is loss of trust and confidence when an employee fraudulently and willfully committed acts or
omission in breach of the trust reposed in her/him by the employer. Two requisites must be complied
with to justify this ground for termination. First, the employee must be holding a position of trust, and
second, the employer shall sufficiently establish the employee's act that would justify loss of trust and
confidence. The act must be characterized as real wherein the facts that brought about such act were
clearly established, and that the employee committed the same without any justifiable reason.
Cathay has complied with the two aforementioned requisites for loss of trust and confidence. We have
already settled that Lamadrid's position was imbued with trust and confidence. Likewise, the airline
clearly demonstrated that she committed an infraction of company policy that breached its trust and
confidence on her. x x x Pilferage of company property is an act characterized by fraud or dishonesty
which may be meted with summary dismissal. x x x
Cathay attached a confirmation from Danone Imported Water Asia that the batch number of the Evian
water confiscated from Lamadrid belonged to the batch of Evian water that was exclusively shipped to
Cathay. This certainly established that the bottle of water confiscated from her was Cathay's property.
Admittedly, Lamadrid transgressed Cathay's Disciplinary and Grievance Policy by taking out the bottle of
water without authorization.
3) NO. While the weight of evidence points to Lamadrid's infraction of company policy, We should also
consider that this is Lamadrid's first infraction in her 17 years of service in the airline which involved a
mere bottle of water. Concededly, the company laid down the penalties for violation of its policies;
however, the evaluation of an employee's infraction should be dealt with fairness and reason. Simply
put, all surrounding circumstances must be considered, and the penalty must be commensurate to the
violation committed by an employee. Termination of the services of an employee should be the
employer's last resort especially when other disciplinary actions may be imposed, considering the
employee's long years of service in the company, devoting time, effort and invaluable service in line with
the employer's goals and mission, as in Lamadrid's case. Thus, We emphasize the principle of totality of
infractions, viz: x x x The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period
of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee.
During Lamadrid's span of employment, she did not commit any infraction or was ever sanctioned
except in the incident subject of the present controversy. To impose a penalty as grave as dismissal for a
first offense and considering the value of the property allegedly taken would be too harsh under the
circumstances. Therefore, Lamadrid was illegally dismissed from service.
4) NO. While management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate
penalties on erring workers, pursuant to company rules and regulations, however, such management
prerogatives must be exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for
the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws and valid
agreements. The Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its own interest to protect, and
pursuant thereto, it may terminate an employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off
an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be tempered
with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution of said
prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee's position, but his very livelihood, his very
breadbasket.
