De Vera v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Norman de Vera, an Assistant Cashier at Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for approximately 25 years, was dismissed following irregularities involving a P10-million RCBC Manager's Check and personal checks totaling P1,650,000.00. He claimed he endorsed personal checks after they were encashed under his superior's orders and was presented with a Time Certificate of Deposit (TCD) with a forged signature. He also reported an apparent mistake by his superior, Branch Manager Rebecca Dizon, in crediting ASB's P10-million check to Daniel Martinez's account instead of ASB's. Subsequently, an earlier anomaly involving a P4.7-million check from NAFP Retirements and Separation Benefit System (NAFP-RSBS) was uncovered, which was also diverted to an account of Russel, Crame and Co., Inc., whose authorized signer was Daniel Martinez. Four checks drawn against Russel's account were encashed, three jointly approved by Dizon and the petitioner, and eleven others approved by Dizon and the petitioner. Procedural History: The petitioner was placed under preventive suspension on June 4, 1987, and subsequently received a Notice of Termination on August 3, 1987, citing fraud or willful breach of trust. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter ordered BPI to pay the petitioner separation pay. Upon appeal by BPI, the NLRC deleted the award of separation pay, holding that due process was substantially complied with, and denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioner assailed the NLRC's resolution, contending that he was denied due process and was entitled to reinstatement or separation pay, full backwages, and other benefits. He argued that he was not aware he was being indicted and tried for an offense, despite being interviewed and summoned by the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS). The respondent bank argued that the notice of preventive suspension and subsequent interviews constituted sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.
Issue(s)
Whether the requirements of due process were substantially complied with in dismissing the petitioner. Whether the notice of preventive suspension and subsequent interviews constituted adequate notice and ample opportunity to be heard. Whether the alleged defects in due process were cured by the petitioner presenting his case before the NLRC. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement or separation pay, full backwages, and other benefits; and whether management's discretion and loss of confidence were properly invoked.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the public respondent NLRC is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The private respondent (BPI) is ORDERED to REINSTATE petitioner NORMAN DE VERA to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits with BACKWAGES equivalent to three years, without qualifications and deductions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of due process: The Court ruled that the petitioner was denied due process of law, rendering his dismissal illegal. The twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential for employee dismissal, and failure to satisfy them is fatal. The Court found the respondents' submissions that the Notice of Preventive Suspension was adequate notice and the subsequent interviews were ample opportunities to be heard to be devoid of merit. The notice of preventive suspension stated its objectives were to ascertain the extent of loss and pinpoint responsibility, not to apprise the petitioner of the causes for his dismissal. The subsequent interview was not the "ample opportunity to be heard" contemplated by law, which requires informing the employee of the charges to allow refutation. The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner, with his education and position, should have realized he was being investigated for complicity, stating he is not expected to be proficient in legal intricacies and should not be faulted for relying on the bank's representation that the investigation concerned the criminal case against Martinez. The Court admonished the bank for provoking self-incriminating statements under the guise of another investigation. Furthermore, the employer is mandated to furnish the employee two notices: the written charge and the notice of dismissal if warranted after a hearing. No written charge was furnished to the petitioner. On the inadequacy of notice and opportunity to be heard: (This is a restatement of the previous point for clarity) The Court found the respondents' submissions that the Notice of Preventive Suspension was adequate notice and the subsequent interviews were ample opportunities to be heard to be devoid of merit. The notice of preventive suspension stated its objectives were to ascertain the extent of loss and pinpoint responsibility, not to apprise the petitioner of the causes for his dismissal. The subsequent interview was not the "ample opportunity to be heard" contemplated by law, which requires informing the employee of the charges to allow refutation. On the curing of due process defects: The Court found the claim that alleged defects in due process were cured when the petitioner presented his case before the NLRC to be untenable. The case before the NLRC was the petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal, which occurred after he had already been terminated. The Labor Code mandates the procedure prior to dismissal. The principle of "fire the employee, and let him explain later" is not in accord with due process. On the entitlement to remedies and management's discretion: The Court rejected claims of a "wider latitude of discretion" for management in disciplining managerial employees, emphasizing that management's discretion is subject to due process requirements. The ground of "loss of confidence" must rest on some basis, which was not established here because the petitioner was never investigated or heard in his defense. Therefore, it could not be said that he was guilty to justify the claim of loss of trust. The Court distinguished this case from PLDT v. NLRC, where "theft" was clearly established and no question of due process was involved. The Court reiterated that due process is applicable to managerial employees, and its absence renders any dismissal unlawful, warranting reinstatement plus backwages.
Main Doctrine
The twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential elements of due process in cases of employee dismissal. Failure to satisfy these requisites is fatal. A notice of preventive suspension is not adequate notice of dismissal, and subsequent interviews do not constitute ample opportunity to be heard if the employee is not informed of the charges against him.