GR 155037; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155037 . April 29, 2005
ANVIL ENSEMBLES GARMENT, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. CRESENCIO RAMOS, JR., and MELECIO BONABON, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Anvil Ensembles Garment hired respondent Melecio Bonabon as a probationary company driver on January 7, 1997. On March 25, 1997, the petitioner advised Bonabon not to report for work anymore without providing any explanation. Bonabon subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The petitioner, in its defense, submitted a joint affidavit from two employees alleging that Bonabon was dismissed for negligence in handling a cutting machine during a delivery in February 1997, causing extensive damage.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Bonabon, declaring the dismissal illegal. The Arbiter found that the petitioner failed to substantiate the charge of negligence and that Bonabon was not afforded procedural due process. The NLRC affirmed this decision in toto. The Court of Appeals, upon petition, affirmed the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal but deleted the award of attorney’s fees, prompting the petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding that petitioner illegally dismissed respondent Melecio Bonabon.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on the twin requirements for a valid dismissal: just cause and procedural due process. The petitioner failed to establish a just cause. For negligence to be a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, it must be gross and habitual. Gross negligence implies a want of even slight care or a reckless disregard of consequences. The petitioner’s sole evidence was a joint affidavit lacking specific details of Bonabon’s acts or omissions constituting such gross negligence; this did not constitute substantial evidence.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to comply with procedural due process. Bonabon was summarily dismissed without any notice, written or oral, apprising him of the charges or giving him an opportunity to be heard. While the petitioner argued that a procedural lapse merely renders a dismissal defective, not illegal, this contention is unavailing when, as here, there is an absence of a valid substantive ground for termination. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. As a probationary employee, Bonabon was entitled to security of tenure and could only be terminated for a just or authorized cause and after due process, requirements which the petitioner did not satisfy.