Ranises vs NLRC : 111914 : September 24, 1996 : J Francisco : Third ... 4 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111914.htm HIS BEHAVIOR AND CHARACTER BEING TOO DANGEROUS FOR THE VESSEL, I WOULD LIKE TO ADVISE YOU OF HIS SOONEST REPLACEMENT WHICH IS ALSO HIS REAL DESIRE IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE VERY POSSIBLE TROUBLES. THANKS FOR YOUR SERIOUS ATTENTION AND YOUR SOONEST ACTIONS. VERY TRULY YOURS, CAPT. T. SONODA MASTER OF THE M/V SOUTHERN LAUREL [12] Unfortunately, the veracity of the allegations contained in the aforecited telex was never proven by respondent employer. Neither was it shown that respondent employer exerted any effort to even verify the truthfulness of Capt. Sonodas report and establish petitioners culpability for his alleged illegal acts. Worse, no other evidence was submitted to corroborate the charges against petitioner. In contrast, petitioner controverted the charges against him upon denying that he requested for an early repatriation and pointing to the absence of any entry in his Seamans Book with regard to the cause of his discharge. Moreover, petitioners demand that he be paid the salary stipulated in his original contract cannot be construed as baseless and unreasonable considering that the Special Agreement amending the existing CBA which reduced his salary [13] after he was already deployed in the vessel. was signed only on February 26, 1990, Undoubtedly, petitioner had a legitimate concern in questioning the reduction in his salary because this was contrary to his original contract and he was not informed thereof prior to his deployment in the vessel. It was therefore not far-fetched that, as found by the POEA, petitioners persistence in demanding the payment of the salary in his original contract prompted respondent [14] employer to cause his early repatriation and eventual dismissal. Evidently, in the face of contrary evidence, respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in opting to rely exclusively on the bare allegations pertaining to petitioners alleged illegal acts as contained in the aforementioned telex, and consequently finding petitioner liable for breach of trust. While it is true that loss of trust or breach of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an [15] employee, such loss or breach of trust must have some basis. Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for dismissal. Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an [16] occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature. Thus, there must be an actual breach of [17] duty committed by the employee and the same must be supported by substantial evidence. Consequent therefore to respondent employers failure to discharge the burden of substantiating its charges of breach of trust against petitioner, there is no just cause for the latters dismissal. Hence, his termination from employment is illegal. With respect however to petitioners claim that he should be paid the salary provided in his original contract in the amount of US$1,571.00 per month, we agree with respondent NLRC in rejecting the same. As correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General and with which we are in complete accord: It should, however, be noted that NLRC was correct in finding that under the new ITF/JSU/AMOSUP CBA with Sinkai Shipping Co. Ltd., as approved by POEA, which came into effect on January 11, 1990, 1/20/2016 12:51 PM