G.R. No. 73680 July 10, 1986
DANILO O. ALMOITE, petitioner, vs. PACIFIC ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS, INC., RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL INC. AND/OR DONALD A. JONES AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Danilo O. Almoite was employed by private respondent Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc. as a senior resident engineer supervising the Zamboanga Area Shop Project. After receiving a salary increase and expanded duties, he was relieved from the project on July 30, 1984, following complaints from the Ministry of Public Works and Highways regarding construction defects. Almoite submitted an explanatory report on August 8, 1984, but was formally notified of the termination of his services effective August 31, 1984, on grounds of loss of confidence due to alleged incompetence and dishonesty. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
During the proceedings before the labor arbiter, Almoite was granted multiple extensions to file his position paper but failed to submit it by the final deadline of March 4, 1985, filing it ten days late on March 14, 1985. The labor arbiter and subsequently the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled against him, sustaining the legality of his dismissal. Almoite elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing denial of due process and absence of a valid cause for termination.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether Almoite was denied due process, and (2) whether his dismissal was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC’s decision. On the procedural issue, the Court found no denial of due process. The records conclusively showed that Almoite was afforded ample opportunity to be heard, having been given from December 18, 1984, to March 4, 1985—a period exceeding two and a half months—to file his position paper. His failure to comply with the final deadline was his own doing. The Court emphasized that due process is violated by the denial of the opportunity to be heard, not merely by a party’s forfeiture of that opportunity. Almoite’s position paper, though late, was still included in the records reviewed by the NLRC, where he also filed a memorandum and motion for reconsideration, thereby actually exercising his right to be heard.
On the substantive issue, the Court found the dismissal legally justified. It accorded respect to the factual findings of the labor tribunals, which established a basis for loss of confidence due to Almoite’s incompetence and dishonesty. The evidence revealed that his report on construction defects was submitted only after the defects were discovered by the Ministry and he was asked to explain, making his claim of being a whistleblower untenable. Furthermore, evidence indicated he had certified contractor accomplishments leading to premature payments. Loss of confidence, when substantiated as here, is a valid ground for dismissal. The Court also noted that retrenchment was an additional justification, as the project was near completion and management has the prerogative to choose whom to retain. No grave abuse of discretion was found in the NLRC’s ruling.