Case Digest (G.R. No. 176671)
Facts:
The case involves Apo Cement Corporation as the petitioner and Zaldy E. Baptisma as the respondent. Baptisma was employed by Apo Cement Corporation, a cement manufacturing company located in Tinaan, Naga, Cebu, starting June 16, 1998. In September 2003, the company received allegations from an employee, Armando Moralda, that Baptisma, who was the manager of the Power Plant Department, was involved in receiving kickbacks from suppliers. To investigate these claims, the management conducted an inquiry, during which Jerome LobitaAa, an accredited supplier, corroborated Moralda's allegations. On October 10, 2003, both Moralda and LobitaAa executed affidavits detailing the alleged corrupt practices, including specific instances where Baptisma received kickbacks.
Following the investigation, Baptisma was issued a Show Cause Letter and was placed under preventive suspension on November 3, 2003. He submitted a written explanation denying the accusations and participated in admi...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 176671)
Facts:
Employment Details
- Respondent Zaldy E. Baptisma was employed by petitioner Apo Cement Corporation on June 16, 1998, as the manager of its Power Plant Department.
Allegations of Irregularities
- In September 2003, petitioner received information from employee Armando Moralda that some personnel, including respondent, were receiving commissions or kickbacks from suppliers.
- Jerome Lobitaña, a supplier, corroborated Moralda's claims and executed an affidavit detailing instances where he allegedly gave respondent kickbacks.
Investigations and Termination
- On November 3, 2003, respondent received a Show Cause Letter with Notice of Preventive Suspension.
- Respondent denied the allegations in his written explanation on November 5, 2003.
- Administrative hearings were conducted, during which Lobitaña provided detailed testimonies about the kickbacks.
- On March 22, 2004, respondent was terminated from employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
Labor Case Proceedings
- Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC, which ruled in his favor.
- The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding respondent’s termination justified.
- The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, but modified it by awarding separation pay instead of reinstatement.
Issue:
- Whether the loss of trust and confidence was grounded on established facts.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the testimony of Jerome Lobitaña.
- Whether petitioner had just cause to terminate respondent’s employment.
- Whether the legal and factual findings of the lower courts were contradictory, warranting a factual review by the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)