542 Phil. 313
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Please explain in writing why you should not be terminated for committing the following act:Annex “A” to said notices is an unsworn statement in which Fernando gave a detailed account of the illegal act imputed to complainants.[11]
On September 30, 1997, while participating in an obviously illegal strike, you physically assaulted Ms. A Fernando, a Traffic Supervisor. Attached as Annex “A” is the statement of Ms. Fernando.
x x x x
Your illegal act has seriously prejudiced the company’s operations, is a violation of the Code of Conduct and is considered, among others, serious misconduct, which is a ground for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Kindly submit your notarized explanation to your Division Head within 48 hours from receipt of this Notice. Failure on your part to submit a written explanation within the given period shall constitute a waiver of your right to be heard. [10]
In this regard, I hereby elect to exercise my right to be heard and defend myself in a formal hearing, to be set within five (5) days from my receipt of the documents hereinafter requested, pursuant to my right to due process and par. 2.5 of PLDT Systems Practice re the Handling of Administrative Cases. Moreover, kindly furnish me with the copies of formal (written) complaint filed against me as well as statements of witness(es) and preliminary investigation report(s) regarding the complaint, if any.PLDT Division Head Augusto Cotelo (Cotelo) replied on November 3, 1997 that PLDT was deferring action on the request for formal hearing until complainants shall have filed their answers to the charges. Cotelo wrote:
My election to exercise my right to be heard and defend myself in a formal hearing is without prejudice to my right to submit a written explanation at a later time, which I hereby expressly reserve.[14]
Please submit the notarized explanation that we required in our letters of October 8 & 14, 1997 within forty-eight (48) hours upon receipt of this letter, before we can consider any formal hearing. Please be reminded that we shall consider your failure to comply as a waiver of your right to be heard, and accordingly decide on the charges against you on the basis of the evidence on hand. [15] (Emphasis ours)Complainants merely reiterated their request for formal hearing. Thus, Cotelo sent them termination notices dated November 19, 1997 which read:
In light of the repeated demands and your consistent failure to provide the required written explanation for the following acts:Complainants filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and damages with the Labor Arbiter (LA). In a Decision dated July 15, 1998, the LA declared the dismissal of complainants illegal and ordered their reinstatement.[17]
On September 30, 1997, while participating in an obviously illegal strike, you physically assaulted Ms. A. Fernando, a Traffic Supervisor. PLDT has proceeded to consider the charges against you for violation of Article 264 of the Labor Code and for serious misconduct.
Based on the available evidence, the written copy of which were duly sent to you, the Company finds you guilty as charged. The Company cannot see any reason why the evidence that the statements we considered were motivated by any purpose other than to bear witness to the truth. We find these evidence direct and positive identification of your participation in and commission of the illegal act charged.
Your act constitutes a just cause for termination under the Labor Code which authorizes an employer to terminate an employee for serious misconduct and which prohibits the commission of any act of violence, coercion or intimidation, or the obstruction of free ingress and egress, during a strike (see Art. 282-A & 264, Labor Code). There is also the additional attendant circumstances that you committed these acts during a strike that was illegally declared and conducted. Your services with Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company are consequently terminated effective upon receipt of this letter.[16]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED and a new one entered DISMISSING the instant complaint.Complainants filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the NLRC denied in its Resolution dated March 27, 2000.[19]
SO ORDERED.[18]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed decision and resolution are affirmed.The Motion for Reconsideration filed by complainants was denied by the CA in its January 11, 2001 Resolution.[22]
SO ORDERED. [21]
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE INSTANT DISPUTE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER THAT THE DISMISSAL OF HEREIN PETITIONNERS WAS MADE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.[23]G.R. No. 153584
Please explain in writing why you should not be terminated for committing the following act:When Mariano did not reply, Tanchico sent him another notice[27] dated October 24, 1997, instructing him to submit his notarized explanation otherwise the charges against him will be resolved based on the available evidence.
On 19 September 1997, at around 11:50 a.m., you verbally and physically assaulted MELVYN T. GUILLERMO, a PLDT subscriber xxx. Attached for your reference as Annex “A” is the letter-complaint of Mr. Guillermo.
This act is illegal and violates express provisions of the Labor Code which among others provide:ART. 264.Additionally, as provided in the law, any worker who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.
x x x x
(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes or obstruct public thoroughfares.
Your illegal act has seriously prejudiced the company’s operations, is a violation of the Code of Conduct and is considered, among others, serious misconduct, which is a ground for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Kindly submit your notarized explanation to your Division Head within 48 hours from receipt of this Notice. Failure on your part to submit a written explanation within the given period shall constitute a waiver of your right to be heard.[26]
Sir, your memorandum dated 13 October 1997 xxx is a gross violation of my constitutional right as worker and employee to self organization xxx.Hence, Reynaldo Puzon, PLDT Assistant Vice-President for North Luzon, sent Mariano a notice dated November 18, 1997, informing him of the termination of his employment, thus:
Hence, I hereby elect to exercise my right to due process, i.e., to be heard and defend myself in a formal hearing to be set within 5 (FIVE) days from receipt of documents hereinafter requested.
Pursuant to PLDT System Practice #94-016 dated August 10, 1994 (Handling of Administrative Cases), please furnish me a copy of formal (written) complaint filed against me, statement of witness/es and preliminary investigations and/or report/s conducted on the aforesaid incident, if any.
My option to be heard and defend myself in a formal hearing is without prejudice to my right of recourse at a later time which I hereby expressly reserve.[28]
xxx You asked in your letter that you be allowed to defend yourself in a formal hearing but you failed to provide a written explanation.Mariano filed a Complaint[30] for illegal dismissal and damages with the LA but the latter dismissed it in a Decision[31] dated December 15, 1998. Mariano appealed to the NLRC but to no avail as the latter, in its December 27, 1999 Resolution,[32] affirmed the December 15, 1998 LA Decision. In its Resolution[33] of March 3, 2000, the NLRC denied Mariano’s Motion for Reconsideration.
In light of the demands and your failure to provide the required written explanation for the following acts:
On September 19, 1997, at around 11:50 a.m., you verbally and physically assaulted Mr. Melvyn Guillermo, a PLDT subscriber who had just paid his PLDT bill at the company’s Laoag Business Office. After verbally abusing Mr. Guillermo by shouting invectives in his face, you boxed and slapped him, striking his face, left shoulder and arm. PLDT has proceeded to consider the charges against you for violation of Art. 264 of the Labor Code and for serious misconduct.
Based on the available evidence, the written copy of which were duly sent to you, the Company finds you guilty as charged. The Company cannot see any reason why the evidence that the statements we considered were motivated by any purpose other than to bear witness to the truth. We find these evidence direct and positive identification of your participation in and commission of the illegal act charged.
Your act constitutes a just cause for termination under the Labor Code which authorizes an employer to terminate an employee for serious misconduct and which prohibits the commission of any act of violence, coercion or intimidation, or the obstruction of free ingress and egress, during a strike (see Art. 282-A & 264, Labor Code). There is also the additional attendant circumstances that you committed these acts during a strike that was illegally declared and conducted. Your services with Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company are consequently terminated effective upon receipt of this letter.[29]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed decision and resolution are AFFIRMED.Mariano sought reconsideration of the foregoing decision but the CA denied the same in its Resolution[37] of May 9, 2002.
SO ORDERED.[36]
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD DECIDED THE INSTANT DISPUTE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER THAT THE DISMISSAL OF HEREIN PETITIONER WAS MADE IN VIOLATION OF [HIS] RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.[38]G.R. No. 163793
Please explain in writing why you should not be terminated for committing the following acts:Borje replied on November 7, 1997, to wit:This act is illegal and violates express provisions of the Labor Code xxx.
- October 15, 1997, at around 8:35 a.m., you hurled a stone hitting the leg (below the knee) of Mr. Danny N. Garcia, OPM Supervisor xxx as a result of which Mr. Garcia suffered a contusion. Attached as Annex “A” is the incident report of Mr. Garcia; and
- October 15, 1997, at around 8:20 p.m, you threw stones at Mr. Amelito Visico, an employee of Southland Security Corporation of the Philippines assigned at the PLDT Exchange, San Fernando, La Union. Minutes later or at around 8:35 p.m., you again threw stones inside PLDT premises hitting and damaging the right side window of PLDT’s service vehicle with body no. 96-495 and plate no. UJW-359. Attached as Annex “B” is the Affidavit of Mr. Visico.
Additionally, as provided in the law, any worker who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.
Your illegal act has seriously prejudiced the company’s operations, is a violation of the Code of Conduct and is considered, among others, serious misconduct, which is ground for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Kindly submit your notarized explanation to your Division Head within 48 hours from receipt of this Notice. Failure on your part to submit a written explanation within the given period shall constitute a waiver of your right to be heard.[40]
Sir, your memorandum dated 13 October 1997 xxx is a gross violation of my constitutional right as worker and employee to self organization xxx.Puzon sent Borje a notice dated November 18, 1997 informing him of the termination of his employment, thus:
Hence, I hereby elect to exercise my right to due process, i.e., to be heard and defend myself in a formal hearing to be set within 5 (FIVE) days from receipt of documents hereinafter requested.
Pursuant to PLDT System Practice #94-016 dated August 10, 1994 (Handling of Administrative Cases), please furnish me a copy of formal (written) complaint filed against me, statement of witness/es and preliminary investigations and/or report/s conducted on the aforesaid incident, if any.
My election to exercise my right to be heard and defend myself in a formal hearing is without prejudice to my right to submit a written explanation at a later time, which I hereby expressly reserve. [41]
xxx You asked in your letter that you be allowed to defend yourself in a formal hearing but you failed to provide a written explanation.Borje filed a Complaint[43] for illegal dismissal and damages with the LA but the latter dismissed it in a Decision dated January 26, 2001.[44] Borje appealed to the NLRC which, in a Resolution dated September 28, 2001, held:
In light of the demands and your failure to provide the required written explanation for the following acts:
On October 15, 1997, at aroun 8:35 a.m., you hurled a stone hitting the leg (below the knee) of Mr. Danny Garcia, OPM Supervisor. As a result of which Mr. Garcia suffered a contusion. On the same day, at around 8:20 p.m., you threw stones at Mr. Amelito Visico, an employee of Southland Security Corporation of the Philippines assigned at the PLDT Exchange, San Fernando, La Union. Minutes later or at around 8:35 p.m., you again threw stones inside PLDT premises hitting and damaging the right side window of PLDT’s service vehicle with body no. 94-495 and plate no. UJW-359. PLDT has proceeded to consider the charges against you for violation of Article 264 of the Labor Code and for serious misconduct.
Based on the available evidence, the written copy of which were duly sent to you, the Company finds you guilty as charged. The Company cannot see any reason why the evidence that the statements we considered were motivated by any purpose other than to bear witness to the truth. We find these evidence direct and positive identification of your participation in and commission of the illegal act charged.
Your act constitutes a just cause for termination under the Labor Code which authorizes an employer to terminate an employee for serious misconduct and which prohibits the commission of any act of violence, coercion or intimidation, or the obstruction of free ingress and egress, during a strike (see Art. 282-A & 264, Labor Code). There is also the additional attendant circumstances that you committed these acts during a strike that was illegally declared and conducted. Your services with Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company are consequently terminated effective upon receipt of this letter.[42]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is AFFIRMED and complainant’s appeal, DISMISSED for lack of merit.Borje’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its January 7, 2002 Resolution.[46]
SO ORDERED. [45]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC is REVERSED and new one entered ordering the REINSTATEMENT of the Petitioner without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to grant him full backwages, to be computed from the time of his illegal dismissal without qualification or deduction. Let the records of this case be REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for appropriate computation of backwages.PLDT filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied the same in a Resolution[50] dated June 1, 2004.
SO ORDERED.[49]
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE NLRC COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE LABOR ARBITER’S DECISION UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF RESPONDENT’S DISMISSAL ON THE ISSUE OF ALLEGED LACK OF DUE PROCESS, THE SAME BEING CONTRARY TO LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE THAT FOR CERTIORARI TO SUCCEED ABUSE OF DISCRETION MUST SATISFACTORILY BE SHOWN TO BE “GRAVE”, WHICH IS NOT SO IN THE CASE AT BAR.[51][sic]The petitions in G.R. No. 146762 and G.R. No. 153584 are partly meritorious in that the CA did not err in upholding the validity of the dismissal of Suico, Ceniza, Dacut, and Mariano but the PLDT should be ordered to pay said employees nominal damages pursuant to Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission.[52]
Art. 277. Miscellaneous Provisions.It is implemented by Rule XXIII of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code,[53] which provides:
x x x x
(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cause for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires, in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. (Emphasis supplied).
I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:It is the view of PLDT that in the dismissal of employees for strike-related violence, it is sufficient to merely declare the latter to have lost their employment without having to comply with any procedure for their termination.[54]PLDT is mistaken. Art. 277 (b) in relation to Art. 264 (a)[55] and (e)[56] recognizes the right to due process of all workers, without distinction as to the cause of their termination.[57] Where no distinction is given, none is construed.[58] Hence, the foregoing standards of due process apply to the termination of employment of Suico, et al. even if the cause therefor was their supposed involvement in strike-related violence prohibited under Art. 264 (a) and (e).
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination xxx.
Effective DateAugust 10, 1994
HANDLING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
x x x x
- PURPOSE
This practice describes the procedural guidelines for handling administrative cases.- GENERAL
2.1 Investigation of offenses or infractions of Company regulations committed by employees shall be handled by various investigating units xxx;
x x x x
2.5 An employee under investigation for the commission of an offense or infraction shall be informed in writing of the particular act constituting the offense or infraction imputed to him. He may answer the charges against him in writing within a reasonable period of time (at least 48 hours but not more than 72 hours) or be afforded the opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his counsel or union representative, if he so desires. (Emphasis supplied)