G.R. No. 127553 November 28, 1997
EDDIE MANUEL, ROMEO BANA, ROGELIO PAGTAMA, JR. and JOEL REA, petitioners, vs. N.C. CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, JOHNNY LIM, ANITA SY and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr., and Joel Rea were employed as drivers by N.C. Construction Supply, owned by respondents Johnny Lim and Anita Sy. On June 3, 1995, a company driver and his helper were caught stealing company property. During police investigation, the helper, Jay Calso, named petitioners among other employees involved in a series of thefts. On June 5, 1995, petitioners received notices from the company about the accusation and were invited to the Pasig police station. At the station, the company’s counsel, Atty. Ramon Reyes, conducted an investigation. Petitioners initially denied involvement but, after being positively identified by Calso, admitted guilt and offered to resign in exchange for the withdrawal of criminal charges. Petitioners Bana and Rea submitted written resignation letters, while Manuel and Pagtama, Jr. tendered oral resignations. Atty. Reyes accepted the resignations effective June 5, 1995. On July 17, 1995, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging their admissions and resignations were involuntary, obtained through threat and intimidation, and that they were not afforded due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the dismissal illegal due to lack of just cause and due process, and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, ruling the dismissal was for a just cause but without due process, ordering respondents to pay each petitioner P1,000.00 as indemnity.

ISSUE

1. Whether the dismissal of petitioners was for a just cause.
2. Whether the admissions made by petitioners during the investigation are admissible as evidence despite being allegedly obtained without the assistance of counsel.
3. Whether the respondents complied with the procedural due process requirements in terminating petitioners’ employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision.
1. The dismissal was for a just cause. Petitioners were found guilty of theft of company property, constituting loss of trust and confidence under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Their culpability was sufficiently proved by the positive identification of co-employee Jay Calso, who had personal knowledge of the thefts, and by petitioners’ own admissions during the investigation. The Court found no evidence to support petitioners’ claim that the admissions were obtained through threat or intimidation. Substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, is required in labor cases.
2. The admissions are admissible. The constitutional right to counsel under Section 12, Article III applies only to custodial investigation in criminal proceedings, where questioning is initiated by law enforcement officers after a person is taken into custody. The investigation here was an administrative inquiry conducted by the employer’s counsel to determine grounds for termination, not a criminal investigation. The venue at the police station was merely incidental and did not convert it into custodial investigation.
3. The respondents failed to comply with procedural due process. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices: one apprising the employee of the specific acts or omissions constituting the grounds for dismissal, and another informing the employee of the decision to dismiss. There was no showing that petitioners were furnished with these notices. Respondents, through counsel, terminated petitioners’ services immediately after the investigation. Thus, respondents were ordered to indemnify petitioners for failure to observe due process. The petition was dismissed, and the NLRC decision was affirmed.