Carlos A. Gothong Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Adolfo Lauron was employed as a watchman by petitioner Carlos A. Gothong Lines, Inc. on board its vessel. On April 4, 1987, a fire occurred in Lauron's cabin and the Chief Engineer's cabin while the vessel was at sea. Lauron was ordered to disembark on April 6, 1987, for an investigation. Procedural History: No investigation was conducted until mid-May 1987, after which Lauron was informed of his dismissal. Lauron filed an illegal dismissal case on May 28, 1987. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering the employer to pay Lauron backwages, 13th-month pay, and separation pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision with modification, ordering backwages from the date of dismissal up to finality of judgment (limited to three years) and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The NLRC denied the employer's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Carlos A. Gothong Lines, Inc. filed a special civil action for certiorari, assailing the NLRC's decision and resolution, arguing that Lauron was denied due process and that the monetary awards were erroneously granted.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that private respondent was illegally dismissed, including the lack of substantive and procedural due process. Whether the NLRC erred in granting full backwages and separation pay, and in computing the same. Whether the NLRC erred in determining the length of service of the private respondent.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the NLRC dated August 7, 1990, and its resolution dated November 29, 1990, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal and due process: The Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that the dismissal was illegal for lack of substantive and procedural due process. The requisites of a valid dismissal, namely, a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code and notice with an opportunity to be heard, were not met. Petitioner failed to show that Lauron's alleged refusal to submit to an investigation was willful or perverse. Furthermore, no written notice of dismissal was given to Lauron, nor was he afforded a hearing. The affidavits presented by the petitioner to impute negligence to Lauron were executed after the illegal dismissal complaint was filed and were considered by the Labor Arbiter as mere rectificatory measures, lacking sufficient probative value to prove administrative responsibility for arson. On the issue of granting monetary awards: The Court found no error in the NLRC's award of backwages and separation pay. The award of backwages was limited to three years, consistent with the law prior to the amendment by Republic Act No. 6715, which has no retroactive effect. Separation pay was granted in lieu of reinstatement, which was deemed more appropriate given the strained relations between the parties. The Court reiterated that separation pay is an alternative to reinstatement in cases of illegal dismissal. On the issue of determining the length of service: The Court upheld the NLRC's determination of Lauron's length of service, which started in 1962. The petitioner's conflicting assertions regarding Lauron's employment dates, as evidenced by various vouchers and claims for separation pay, created doubts fatal to its position. The Labor Arbiter considered all evidence, including a "Release and Quitclaim," to ascertain the correct period of service. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's affirmation of the Labor Arbiter's findings on this matter.
Main Doctrine
An employer must provide an employee with written notice of the specific acts or omissions constituting the grounds for dismissal and afford the employee an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. Mere filing of a criminal case does not suffice for dismissal; the offense must be proven by substantial evidence. Affidavits executed after a complaint for illegal dismissal has been filed are viewed with caution and may be considered rectificatory measures.