SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 166211, July 14, 2008 ]
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NEPTHALLY B. SALLAO AND ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. (MARIVELES) WORKERS' UNION,RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review on certiorari are the Decision[1] dated January 13, 2004, and the Resolution[2] dated November 12, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68457. The appellate court had affirmed the
Decision[3] dated July 31, 2000, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in CA No. 020887-99, which reversed the Decision [4] dated June 30, 1999, of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-12-9645-98.
The antecedent facts are as follows.
Nepthally B. Sallao (Sallao) was employed as an electrician by petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI). On September 22, 1998, ATI, through Lt. Leonardo M. Soriano, Detachment Commander of the Core Security & Training Agency Corp., conducted an investigation regarding the loss and sale of electric copper wire cable. Lt. Soriano reported that Sallao admitted having sold the wire cable and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees. His co-employees submitted their sworn statements [5] where they detailed how the aforecited infraction was committed.
In a Memorandum[6] dated September 24, 1998, Sallao was directed to explain within 48 hours his participation in the aforecited infraction. In the meantime, he was placed under preventive suspension. On September 28, 1998, Sallao submitted his written explanation[7] wherein he denied the allegations against him. He requested that an investigation in the presence of his counsel be conducted and that he be given copies of the sworn statements of his co-employees.
In his progress report dated October 20, 1998, Lt. Soriano recommended that Sallao be penalized for unauthorized disposition/sale of company property. On October 20, 1998, ATI dismissed Sallao effective immediately.[8]
Sallao then filed on December 3, 1998 a Complaint[9] for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, damages, and other monetary claims. On June 30, 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint. The Labor Arbiter found that all evidence pointed to Sallao as the one responsible for the loss of the wire cable. He also ruled that Sallao was afforded due process since ATI conducted an investigation before dismissing him.[10]
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision. It ruled that since the sworn statements of Sallao's co-employees were unverified, the same cannot be given any weight. It also noted that the sworn statements were tainted with inconsistencies and falsities. Thus, Sallao should have been given the opportunity to confront his co-employees. The NLRC decreed:
ATI contends that there was substantial evidence to prove that Sallao was responsible for the loss and sale of electric copper wire cable. In his report, Lt. Soriano disclosed that Sallao admitted having sold the wire cable and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees. Such admission was supported by the sworn statements executed by his co-employees involved in the incident. ATI argues that although the statements were unverified, the same should be given probative value since technical rules of procedure are not binding in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. ATI further avers that its denial of Sallao's request for an investigation in the presence of his counsel should not be taken to mean that he was deprived of due process. Sallao was in fact given the opportunity to submit within 48 hours his written explanation.
Sallao counters that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are conditions sine qua non before a dismissal may be effected. Having been deprived of the same, he is entitled to the reliefs granted by the NLRC.
Settled is the rule that the requisites of a valid dismissal are: (1) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and (2) the dismissal must be for any of the just causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283[13] and 284 [14] of the same Code.[15]
Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the following are deemed just causes to terminate an employee: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Per notice of the termination of his employment, Sallao was dismissed for unauthorized withdrawal, use and disposal of company property. In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC,[16] we declared that theft of company property is a recognized just and valid cause for dismissing an employee under Article 282 (a), (c) and (e), as enumerated above.[17]
After reviewing the records of this case, we are in agreement that Sallao's dismissal was in accordance with the law. Upon its discovery of the loss and sale of electric copper wire cable, ATI conducted an initial investigation through Lt. Soriano. In his memorandum, Lt. Soriano disclosed that Sallao admitted his complicity in the incident. To buttress ATI's initial finding, Sallao's co-employees submitted their respective sworn statements where they identified him as the one responsible for the incident.
We note that when ATI required Sallao to explain his alleged infraction, he merely denied in general the allegations and requested for an investigation in the presence of his counsel and for copies of the sworn statements of his co-employees. Sallao never squarely addressed Lt. Soriano's report that Sallao admitted during the initial investigation that he sold the wire cable and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees. Even in the pleadings submitted in this case, Sallao remained silent on this point.
As the admission stands, we are persuaded that Sallao indeed committed the aforecited infraction. In effect, the sworn statements of his co-employees merely corroborated his admission. Thus, we find no need to delve into the probative value of the sworn statements since his guilt has been proven by his own admission.
On the issue of due process, it is settled that notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected. The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. The second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. With regard to the requirement of a hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.[18]
In this case, ATI appears to have complied with these requirements. ATI furnished Sallao with a Memorandum dated September 24, 1998, apprising him of the particular acts or omissions constituting the alleged infraction and requiring him to explain within 48 hours. Instead of submitting a written explanation, Sallao merely denied in general the allegations against him and requested for an investigation in the presence of his counsel. He also requested that he be furnished with the sworn statements of his co-employees. Moreover, Sallao submitted his request only on September 28, 1998, beyond the 48-hour period given by ATI. In any event, ATI furnished Sallao with a notice of termination informing him of the basis of his dismissal.
Thus, we find that Sallao was afforded due process before he was dismissed. Even if no face-to-face hearing was conducted, the requirement of due process had been met since he was accorded a chance to explain his side of the controversy.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 13, 2004, and the Resolution dated November 12, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68457 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated June 30, 1999, of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-12-9645-98 is REINSTATED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio Morales, Tinga, and Brion, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., Pls. see separate concuring opinion.
[1] Rollo, pp. 38-49. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Jose L. Sabio, Jr. concurring.
[2] Id. at 63-64.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 21-40.
[4] Id. at 94-104.
[5] Id. at 82-88.
[6] Id. at 89.
[7] Id. at 92.
[8] Id. at 79.
[9] Id. at 44-48.
[10] Id. at 102-104.
[11] Id. at 39.
[12] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[13] ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.
[14] ART. 284. Disease as ground for termination. An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
[15] National Bookstore, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146741, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 194, 200-201.
[16] No. L-53552, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 422.
[17] Id. at 427.
[18] Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 157028, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 311, 321-322.
The antecedent facts are as follows.
Nepthally B. Sallao (Sallao) was employed as an electrician by petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI). On September 22, 1998, ATI, through Lt. Leonardo M. Soriano, Detachment Commander of the Core Security & Training Agency Corp., conducted an investigation regarding the loss and sale of electric copper wire cable. Lt. Soriano reported that Sallao admitted having sold the wire cable and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees. His co-employees submitted their sworn statements [5] where they detailed how the aforecited infraction was committed.
In a Memorandum[6] dated September 24, 1998, Sallao was directed to explain within 48 hours his participation in the aforecited infraction. In the meantime, he was placed under preventive suspension. On September 28, 1998, Sallao submitted his written explanation[7] wherein he denied the allegations against him. He requested that an investigation in the presence of his counsel be conducted and that he be given copies of the sworn statements of his co-employees.
In his progress report dated October 20, 1998, Lt. Soriano recommended that Sallao be penalized for unauthorized disposition/sale of company property. On October 20, 1998, ATI dismissed Sallao effective immediately.[8]
Sallao then filed on December 3, 1998 a Complaint[9] for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, damages, and other monetary claims. On June 30, 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint. The Labor Arbiter found that all evidence pointed to Sallao as the one responsible for the loss of the wire cable. He also ruled that Sallao was afforded due process since ATI conducted an investigation before dismissing him.[10]
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision. It ruled that since the sworn statements of Sallao's co-employees were unverified, the same cannot be given any weight. It also noted that the sworn statements were tainted with inconsistencies and falsities. Thus, Sallao should have been given the opportunity to confront his co-employees. The NLRC decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered, declaring complainant's dismissal from employment as illegal.ATI filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC decision. Hence, the instant petition raising the following issues:
Accordingly, respondent Asian Terminal, Inc. is ordered to reinstate the complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay him full backwages to be computed from the time of his dismissal until the finality of this decision.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Simply stated, the issue is whether Sallao was validly dismissed for cause and with due process.I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT DUE PROCESS WAS NOT OBSERVED IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT WAS WITHOUT JUST CAUSE.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF RESPONDENT TO HIS FORMER POSITION WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS AND PAYMENT OF FULL BACKWAGES TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE TIME OF HIS DISMISSAL UNTIL THE FINALITY OF THE DECISION.[12]
ATI contends that there was substantial evidence to prove that Sallao was responsible for the loss and sale of electric copper wire cable. In his report, Lt. Soriano disclosed that Sallao admitted having sold the wire cable and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees. Such admission was supported by the sworn statements executed by his co-employees involved in the incident. ATI argues that although the statements were unverified, the same should be given probative value since technical rules of procedure are not binding in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. ATI further avers that its denial of Sallao's request for an investigation in the presence of his counsel should not be taken to mean that he was deprived of due process. Sallao was in fact given the opportunity to submit within 48 hours his written explanation.
Sallao counters that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are conditions sine qua non before a dismissal may be effected. Having been deprived of the same, he is entitled to the reliefs granted by the NLRC.
Settled is the rule that the requisites of a valid dismissal are: (1) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and (2) the dismissal must be for any of the just causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283[13] and 284 [14] of the same Code.[15]
Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the following are deemed just causes to terminate an employee: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Per notice of the termination of his employment, Sallao was dismissed for unauthorized withdrawal, use and disposal of company property. In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC,[16] we declared that theft of company property is a recognized just and valid cause for dismissing an employee under Article 282 (a), (c) and (e), as enumerated above.[17]
After reviewing the records of this case, we are in agreement that Sallao's dismissal was in accordance with the law. Upon its discovery of the loss and sale of electric copper wire cable, ATI conducted an initial investigation through Lt. Soriano. In his memorandum, Lt. Soriano disclosed that Sallao admitted his complicity in the incident. To buttress ATI's initial finding, Sallao's co-employees submitted their respective sworn statements where they identified him as the one responsible for the incident.
We note that when ATI required Sallao to explain his alleged infraction, he merely denied in general the allegations and requested for an investigation in the presence of his counsel and for copies of the sworn statements of his co-employees. Sallao never squarely addressed Lt. Soriano's report that Sallao admitted during the initial investigation that he sold the wire cable and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees. Even in the pleadings submitted in this case, Sallao remained silent on this point.
As the admission stands, we are persuaded that Sallao indeed committed the aforecited infraction. In effect, the sworn statements of his co-employees merely corroborated his admission. Thus, we find no need to delve into the probative value of the sworn statements since his guilt has been proven by his own admission.
On the issue of due process, it is settled that notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected. The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. The second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. With regard to the requirement of a hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.[18]
In this case, ATI appears to have complied with these requirements. ATI furnished Sallao with a Memorandum dated September 24, 1998, apprising him of the particular acts or omissions constituting the alleged infraction and requiring him to explain within 48 hours. Instead of submitting a written explanation, Sallao merely denied in general the allegations against him and requested for an investigation in the presence of his counsel. He also requested that he be furnished with the sworn statements of his co-employees. Moreover, Sallao submitted his request only on September 28, 1998, beyond the 48-hour period given by ATI. In any event, ATI furnished Sallao with a notice of termination informing him of the basis of his dismissal.
Thus, we find that Sallao was afforded due process before he was dismissed. Even if no face-to-face hearing was conducted, the requirement of due process had been met since he was accorded a chance to explain his side of the controversy.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 13, 2004, and the Resolution dated November 12, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68457 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated June 30, 1999, of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-12-9645-98 is REINSTATED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio Morales, Tinga, and Brion, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., Pls. see separate concuring opinion.
[1] Rollo, pp. 38-49. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Jose L. Sabio, Jr. concurring.
[2] Id. at 63-64.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 21-40.
[4] Id. at 94-104.
[5] Id. at 82-88.
[6] Id. at 89.
[7] Id. at 92.
[8] Id. at 79.
[9] Id. at 44-48.
[10] Id. at 102-104.
[11] Id. at 39.
[12] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[13] ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.
[14] ART. 284. Disease as ground for termination. An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
[15] National Bookstore, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146741, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 194, 200-201.
[16] No. L-53552, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 422.
[17] Id. at 427.
[18] Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 157028, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 311, 321-322.