G.R. No. 102958 June 25, 1993
Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI), petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Teresita P. Cansino, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Teresita P. Cansino was an employee of petitioner RCPI from May 1975 until her termination on November 23, 1985. At the time of termination, she was a teletype counter-clerk. On November 5, 1985, RCPI issued a memorandum placing Cansino under preventive suspension for alleged cash shortages, withholding telegrams, and altering dates of receipts and telegrams, and required her to explain within 24 hours. She submitted her explanation on November 7, 1985. On November 23, 1985, RCPI dismissed her. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, the matter was submitted to a grievance machinery. The union sought her reinstatement on humanitarian grounds. After the grievance machinery’s last meeting on December 14, 1988, Cansino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC on January 10, 1989. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint solely on the ground of laches, finding that while the infractions were not serious enough to merit dismissal, Cansino slept on her rights. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with three years’ backwages. The NLRC found no laches, as the complaint was filed 38 days after the final grievance meeting, and found the evidence for the alleged infractions insufficient.

ISSUE

1. Whether private respondent Teresita P. Cansino is guilty of laches for filing her complaint for illegal dismissal more than three years after her termination.
2. Whether the dismissal of private respondent was for a valid cause and with due process.

RULING

1. No, private respondent is not guilty of laches. The Supreme Court ruled that the referral of the dismissal to the grievance machinery, as required by the collective bargaining agreement, could be considered part of an appellate procedure. The pendency of the grievance proceedings affected the ripeness of the cause of action, and filing a complaint prior to the resolution of the grievance would be premature. Cansino filed her complaint only 38 days after the final grievance meeting on December 14, 1988. Laches requires an unreasonable and unexplained delay in asserting a right. The elements of laches were not present, as there was no undue delay, and the petitioner was aware that Cansino was asserting her rights through the grievance machinery. The case of National Shipyards and Steel Corporation vs. Court of Industrial Relations cited by the petitioner was distinguished, as it involved a simple money claim, not a dismissal case where the employee was contesting the termination through a negotiated grievance procedure.
2. No, the dismissal was not for a valid cause and was effected without due process. The NLRC found the evidence for the alleged infractions—cash shortages, withholding telegrams, and alteration of records—to be insufficient, as the petitioner failed to present crucial supporting documents such as the auditor’s report, copies of the altered receipts or telegrams, and the specific company policies violated. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the dismissal violated the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process. Substantively, the alleged acts did not constitute gross dishonesty, negligence, or willful breach of trust warranting dismissal. Procedurally, the 24-hour period given to Cansino to submit her written explanation was “unjust, unreasonable and oppressive,” considering the seriousness of the charges and the need for legal assistance. The requirements of due process are mandatory and constitute conditions sine qua non for a valid dismissal. The NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
The petition was DISMISSED for lack of merit.