Title
Supreme Court
Bravo vs. Urios College
Case
G.R. No. 198066
Decision Date
Jun 7, 2017
Bravo, a Comptroller at Urios College, was dismissed for misclassifying his position and adjusting salaries without authorization, breaching trust. The Supreme Court upheld his dismissal, citing just cause and procedural compliance, denying him reliefs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 198066)

Background and Employment History

Bravo began his career at Urios College in 1988 as a part-time teacher and was later designated as the school's comptroller from June 1, 2002, to May 31, 2003. The college aimed to formulate a new ranking system for non-academic employees, which classified roles based on responsibilities and functions. Bravo proposed changes regarding his classification and subsequently experienced a significant alteration in his salary scale, which he believed was endorsed by the administration.

Events Leading to Dismissal

The ranking system implemented caused notable discrepancies and salary miscomputations. An investigation was conducted after complaints about the salary adjustments prepared solely by Bravo's office without appropriate authorization. Following a show cause memo, which outlined his alleged serious misconduct involving misclassification and miscomputation of salaries, an investigation committee was formed, leading to his dismissal based on the findings.

Legal Proceedings

Initially, after Bravo's termination, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the university, citing serious misconduct that warranted dismissal. However, the National Labor Relations Commission later found that the dismissal was illegal, emphasizing Bravo's good faith in salary increases and lack of sufficient evidence for policy violations.

Court of Appeals Decision

Urios College appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the Arbiter's decision. The Court emphasized that as a managerial employee, Bravo only needed to demonstrate a reasonable ground for the loss of trust required for dismissal, rather than direct proof of misconduct. The court ruled that Bravo's actions in granting himself salary increases constituted a serious breach of trust, justifying his termination.

Supreme Court Ruling

Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinforcing the distinction between managerial and rank-and-file employees regarding termination for loss of trust and confidence. Notably, it was determined that Bravo's position required a level of trust

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.