G.R. No. 178837 September 1, 2014
Colegio De San Juan De Letran, Petitioner, vs. Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris was a teacher at petitioner Colegio De San Juan de Letran. On September 10, 2003, parents of her Preparatory pupils complained about her indifference and questioned the ranking of the top honor pupil. An investigation revealed discrepancies between the grades in her Dirty Record Book (a working record) and her Clean Record Book (the final transcript), along with erasures on some grades in the Clean Records. Petitioner sent respondent a letter on September 12, 2003, detailing the complaints and discrepancies and giving her 72 hours to explain. Respondent refused to receive the letter, so it was sent by registered mail and LBC Express, with LBC confirming delivery on September 23, 2003. According to petitioner, respondent offered no explanation. A conference was held on October 2, 2003, where respondent was advised to give a written explanation or face termination. Petitioner alleged she still refused. Respondent claimed that during this conference, Fr. Edwin Lao terminated her employment effective October 3, 2003, citing her unpleasant conduct towards co-teachers. Petitioner served a termination letter dated September 29, 2003, which respondent also refused to receive. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal valid due to tampering with school records. The NLRC initially modified the decision, ordering separation pay without backwages, finding the act lacked moral turpitude. Upon reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself, affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissing the appeal for lack of a certification of non-forum shopping. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, finding the dismissal illegal due to lack of just cause and procedural due process, and ordered reinstatement with full backwages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the NLRC’s resolution affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The dismissal was for a just cause and complied with procedural due process.
1. On the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: The NLRC correctly dismissed respondent’s appeal for failure to attach the required certification. The 2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure mandate this certification. The Court rejected the CA’s application of the “fresh period rule” from Neypes, as that rule applies to judicial appeals, not administrative appeals before the NLRC.
2. On the Existence of Just Cause for Dismissal: The Court found substantial evidence that respondent committed serious misconduct by tampering with her students’ grades. The Labor Arbiter personally examined the records and found discrepancies and erasures. The act of dishonestly altering official school records constitutes serious misconduct, warranting dismissal. As a teacher, respondent held a position of trust and was expected to be a role model; her act betrayed that trust.
3. On Procedural Due Process: The Court found that petitioner substantially complied with the twin-notice requirement. The first notice (the September 12, 2003 letter) was sent and received, giving respondent the opportunity to explain. She refused to explain. A conference was held on October 2, 2003, where she was again asked to explain. Her continued refusal constituted a waiver of her right to be heard. The termination letter (the second notice) was subsequently served. While the service of notices could have been better, respondent’s refusal to participate in the process negated any claim of denial of due process.