G.R. No. 81480 February 9, 1993
STAYFAST PHILIPPINES CORP., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANTONIO MENGUITO, respondents.

FACTS

Antonio Menguito was a regular employee and Machinist at Stayfast Philippines Corp., employed from January 22, 1981, until his termination on September 23, 1985. He was also the Auditor of the local union. On August 13, 1985, he was reported for using company time, materials, and equipment to repair a personal watch without authorization, an act prohibited by company rules. He was sent a memo the next day asking for a written explanation, which he failed to provide. Consequently, he was found guilty and suspended from August 19 to 21, 1985. On August 19, the day his suspension took effect, a work stoppage occurred. Menguito was accused of inciting, spearheading, and initiating this stoppage. On August 22, 1985, he was served a 30-day preventive suspension memo pending investigation of the work stoppage and was subsequently terminated effective September 23, 1985. The union brought the matter to the Grievance Committee as per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). However, the Grievance Committee Chairman informed the company on October 8, 1985, that the matter had not been thoroughly discussed because Menguito had not been showing up. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Menguito’s complaint for illegal dismissal, but the NLRC reversed this decision, ordering his reinstatement with one year of backwages.

ISSUE

Whether Antonio Menguito was validly dismissed and accorded due process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Menguito was validly dismissed and accorded due process. The petition was granted, reversing the NLRC decision and resolution and affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal. The Court found that the requirements of notice and hearing were satisfied. Menguito was given notice of the charges against him (the memo for the watch repair incident and the preventive suspension memo detailing the work stoppage charge) and an opportunity to be heard (the chance to explain in writing, the investigation during his preventive suspension, and the grievance procedure under the CBA). His failure to explain his side, participate in the investigation, or pursue the grievance procedure despite being a union officer and having knowledge of the process constituted a waiver of his right to be heard. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard, which was afforded to him, and a formal trial-type hearing is not always essential. His termination was therefore valid.