GR 111905; (July, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111905 July 31, 1995
Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Oscar Nitural
FACTS
Petitioner Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ORMECO) indefinitely suspended private respondent Oscar Nitural, an employee, on September 20, 1988, for alleged habitual absenteeism and absence without official leave. Nitural filed a complaint for illegal suspension, constructive dismissal, and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the relationship was strained and awarded Nitural separation pay. Both parties appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed ORMECO’s appeal for failure to post the required appeal bond and granted Nitural’s appeal, ordering his reinstatement with full backwages not exceeding three years, deleting the separation pay award.
ORMECO filed this certiorari petition, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. It alleged Nitural was a problematic employee with a history of disciplinary infractions and that his suspension was justified due to absenteeism and an alleged unauthorized solicitation from a customer. Nitural countered that his absences were due to illness, supported by a medical certificate, and that his suspension without a proper hearing was a constructive dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Oscar Nitural.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC. The legal logic is twofold. First, ORMECO’s failure to post the mandatory appeal bond for its monetary liability rendered the Labor Arbiter’s decision final as to it, pursuant to the Labor Code. This procedural lapse barred its appeal on the merits. Second, on substantive grounds, ORMECO failed to observe the twin-notice requirement for disciplinary action. The indefinite suspension imposed on September 20, 1988, was effectively a dismissal. However, ORMECO only required Nitural to explain before its board on February 4, 1989—over four months later—which violated his right to procedural due process. While the Court acknowledged Nitural’s prior infractions, these were deemed condoned as penalties had already been imposed. The subsequent alleged grounds for dismissal were not proven with clear and convincing evidence in accordance with the rules of evidence prevailing in labor proceedings. The NLRC’s findings, being supported by substantial evidence, were thus final and binding.