G.R. No. 102023 November 6, 1992
RAMON M. ABIERA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PLANTERS BANK, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramon M. Abiera was the Manager of the Roxas City branch of private respondent Republic Planters Bank (RPB). Following an internal audit, he was dismissed on April 28, 1987, on the ground of loss of confidence. After applying for vacation leave in August 1986, he was upon his return served a memorandum requiring his response to the audit report and was not allowed to resume his position, with his leave being extended several times. He was subsequently served a Specification of Charges detailing seven alleged violations of the bank’s Code of Discipline, including over-financing, approving loans in violation of policy, entering into disadvantageous contracts, and violating travel policy. He was advised of a hearing set for December 18, 1986, and was informed he could bring a lawyer. The hearing was rescheduled to January 9, 1987, at his request, where he appeared without counsel. The bank claims he waived legal assistance, while Abiera alleged he believed it was only a preliminary hearing and thus saw no need for a lawyer. On January 12, 1987, he was preventively suspended for thirty days without pay. He protested the procedural defects of the hearing. On February 4, 1987, additional charges were filed concerning sugar quedan irregularities, to which he submitted a written refutation. The Investigating Committee recommended his dismissal, and he was served a Notification of Termination on April 7, 1987. After filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed this decision on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner Ramon M. Abiera by respondent Republic Planters Bank was valid, specifically compliance with the twin requirements of due process (notice and hearing) and the existence of a just cause for dismissal based on loss of confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition, upholding the NLRC’s decision sustaining the dismissal. The Court held that the requirements of due process were satisfied. Petitioner was duly notified of the charges and the hearing, and was advised he could bring a lawyer. The requirement of a hearing was also observed, as he was given ample opportunity to defend himself verbally and through detailed written replies. The Court ruled that a formal trial-type hearing is not always essential; due process is satisfied by a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side and present evidence. The petitioner’s claim of being denied confrontation and access to records was belied by his detailed refutations and his subsequent agreement to submit the case for decision based on position papers and evidence before the Labor Arbiter, which constituted a waiver. Regarding the cause for dismissal, the Court found that the NLRC correctly concluded that petitioner, as branch manager, violated the bank’s Code of Discipline through transactions detrimental to the bank, which either he admitted or were established by preponderant evidence. This conduct justified a loss of confidence, constituting a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code (fraud or willful breach of trust). The bank, given the nature of its business, had every reason to demand utmost trust in a manager holding a sensitive position. The NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion.