Biantan v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felixberto Biantan, employed by Victorias Milling Co., Inc. (VICTORIAS) for 30 years, rose to Head of the Salvage and Disposal Section. In March 1989, VICTORIAS' Internal Audit discovered anomalous sales of brand-new Exide batteries passed off as "discarded" or "deteriorated" to a certain Victor Go. Specifically, four batteries were sold on January 18, 1989, classified as "deteriorated," and another four on March 15, 1989, classified as "discarded." Procedural History: Notices to explain were issued to Biantan and others. Biantan denied involvement. He was placed under preventive suspension for one month, which was later extended. His request for a formal investigation to confront witnesses was denied. Based on company records and witness statements, Biantan was found principally involved in the anomalous transactions and his services were terminated on May 31, 1989. His Department Head, Emilio Yee, received a demotion and suspension. Biantan contested his dismissal as illegal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his claims, finding him directly involved in fraud against the company, which justified the loss of confidence. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. The Petition: Biantan insisted on his non-involvement, claiming the transactions were authorized by his superiors and other departments. The Supreme Court reviewed whether his dismissal was legal or illegal.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of petitioner Felixberto Biantan from his employment was legal or illegal. Whether petitioner was afforded due process in his dismissal.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming the dismissal of petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal is AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that Victorias Milling Co., Inc. is ordered to pay petitioner Felixberto Biantan P1,000.00 as indemnity for non-observance of due process in his dismissal from the service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of dismissal: The Supreme Court found that the evidence adequately delineated and specified petitioner's participation in the anomalous sales. Witness testimonies indicated that petitioner Biantan was present when brand-new industrial batteries were inspected and was instructed to just receive them despite knowing they were new. He personally prepared a shipping list classifying these brand-new batteries as "deteriorated." Similarly, with regard to the March 15, 1989 sale, petitioner was aware that brand-new locomotive batteries were being transferred to the Scrap Yard, yet he facilitated their sale as "discarded batteries." The Court held that petitioner had a direct hand in perpetrating fraud against the company. Given his position, which involved planning and controlling operations, the company had sufficient grounds to lose confidence in him. The findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, being supported by substantial evidence, were binding upon the Supreme Court. On the issue of due process: The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General that petitioner was not accorded due process. The request for a formal investigation to confront witnesses and controvert evidence underscored the inadequacy of the in-plant investigation. The Court reiterated the well-known rule that before an employer may dismiss an employee, the latter must be afforded due process, which includes the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him and to adduce evidence in his defense. Consequently, while the dismissal was justified by loss of confidence and supported by substantial evidence, the procedural infirmity warranted an award of indemnity.
Main Doctrine
An employee's dismissal based on loss of confidence is valid if supported by substantial evidence, but the employer must still afford the employee due process, including the opportunity to confront witnesses and present evidence in defense. Failure to observe due process warrants an award of indemnity.