USO DE LUCES DE OBSTÁCULOS

SHOPPES MANILA, INC vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION [G.R. No. 147125. January 14, 2004]

CALLEJO, SR., J.:.

FACTS: The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in garments manufacturing using the brand name “KAMISETA.” The petitioner employed private respondent Torno as trimmer. The private respondent and a co-employee, Maricar Buan, were tasked to handle the inventory of finished products. Sometime thereafter, the petitioner started to receive information from the head of its production department that, according to other employees, Buan and the private respondent had been stealing “KAMISETA” items from the factory. The petitioner had the witnesses interviewed. Respondent agreed to have her house inspected and searched for the alleged stolen items. The private respondent’s supervisor, conducted the inspection and submitted a report to the effect that she found the KAMISETA items in the private respondent’s house.

On the basis of the said report, the petitioner issued a disciplinary action form suspending the private respondent indefinitely without pay. A notice of dismissal was addressed to the private respondent specifying the charge against her, the factual basis thereof and the imposable penalties for the said charge if proven.

The private respondent failed to appear during the scheduled hearing. Consequently, the petitioner decided to dismiss the private respondent from her employment. When notified of the petitioner’s decision, the private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, non-payment of service incentive leave pay and

13th-month pay against the petitioner before the National Capital Regional Arbitration Branch. Despite mandatory conferences, the parties did not reach an amicable settlement. In due course, they submitted their respective position papers and replies. Acting on the motion, LA Tumanong set the case for full blown hearing during which the witnesses can be cross-examined by the opposing counsel. However, the hearing failed to materialize because of the absences of either the private respondent or her counsel. In the meantime, LA Tumanong was replaced by Labor Arbiter Ermita Abrasaldo-Cuyuca who issued an order declaring that the case was submitted for decision.

LA Cuyuca rendered a decision holding that the respondent was illegally dismissed and directed the petitioner to pay backwages and separation pay to the private respondent. However, according to the labor arbiter, reinstatement could no longer be effected, as the relationship between the private respondent and the petitioner had been strained and ruptured. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC, alleging that it was deprived of its right to a formal hearing before the labor arbiter rendered her decision. LA Cuyuca’s failure to conduct a hearing deprived the petitioner of its vested right; consequently, her decision was null and void.

The NLRC issued a resolution dismissing the appeal and affirming the decision of the labor arbiter. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC.

Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. The CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the NLRC and the finding of both the NLRC and LA Cuyuca. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a CA Resolution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the absence of a formal hearing amounts to denial of petitioner’s right to due process;

2. Whether or not termination of the private respondent’s employment was based on a just and valid cause.

HELD: The petition is barren of merit.

(1) We agree with the CA that the petitioner did not have a vested right to a formal hearing simply and merely because LA Tumanong granted its motion and set the case for hearing. Pursuant to Section 5, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the labor arbiter has the authority to determine whether or not there is a necessity to conduct formal hearings in cases brought before him for adjudication. The holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary with the labor arbiter and is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. It is entirely within his authority to decide a labor case before him, based on the position papers and supporting documents of the parties, without a trial or formal hearing. The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are supposed to attach all the documents that would prove their claim in case it be decided that no hearing should be conducted or was necessary.

(2) Similarly, we affirm the finding of the CA that the private respondent was illegally dismissed. In order to effect a valid dismissal, the law requires that (a) there be just and valid cause as provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (b) the employee be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. As stated by the CA, the petitioner had failed to show that it had complied with the two-notice requirement: (a) a written notice containing a statement of the cause for the termination to afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires; (b) if the employer decides to terminate the services of the employee, the employer must notify him in writing of the decision to dismiss him, stating clearly the reason therefor.

ABANDONMENT OF WORK

L L C D P

ACD INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY, INC. vs. PABLO D. DAQUERA, [G.R. No. 147473. March 30, 2004]

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

FACTS: Pablo Daquera in his complaint against petitioner Alfonso Dilla, Sr. and Public Estates Authority , alleged that he was employed as a security guard by petitioner. He was reassigned to Public Estates Authority as a security officer . However, he was illegally suspended and thereafter illegally dismissed for dishonesty, without prior written notice and investigation. Petitioner Dilla claims that HE received several complaints against respondent for abandonment of post, drinking liquor while on duty, and extortion from subordinate security guards. In an administrative investigation, petitioner found respondent guilty of dishonesty and neglect of duty. Petitioner reassigned him to another post. However, he refused and took a leave of absence to seek employment elsewhere. After one week, respondent still failed to report for work and instead filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against petitioner.

The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal of the complainant as illegal and ordered for his reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and pay him backwages. On appeal, the NLRC, affirmed the Arbiter’s Decision, but discharging Dilla the employer from liability. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the NLRC Decision and Resolution. CA affirmed in toto the assailed decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not, dishonesty, serious misconduct and willful breach of trust are valid causes for dismissing respondent from the service;

2. Whether or not, private respondent is entitled to reinstatement with backwages since he abandoned his work; and

3. Whether or not, the Appellate Court erred in awarding respondent his monetary benefits considering his quitclaim.

HELD:

(1) We have been very careful in cases of dismissal based on dishonesty, serious misconduct, and loss of trust and confidence because the same can easily be concocted by an abusive employer. Second, we are also not convinced that respondent abandoned his work and that terminating his services is a lawful sanction. Deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to go back to his work post and resume his employment must be established. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer.” However, the above twin essential requirements for abandonment to exist are not present in the case at bar.

(2) Respondent who was illegally dismissed from work is actually entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges as well as to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. However, the circumstances obtaining in this case do not warrant the reinstatement of respondent. Antagonism caused a severe strain in the relationship between him and petitioner. A more equitable disposition would be an award of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay for every year of service in addition to his full backwages, allowances and other benefits.

(3) Quitclaims by laborers are frowned upon as contrary to public policy and are held to be ineffective to bar recovery for the full measure of the workers’ rights