G.R. No. 107721 January 10, 1994
CHRISTOPHER MAÑEBO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and TRITRAN and/or MICHAEL TRINIDAD, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Christopher Mañebo was hired in 1980 as a bus conductor and later appointed comptroller in 1987. He was active in union activities, serving as Chief Shop Steward. In June 1990, respondent TRITRAN served him a notice of dismissal for serious misconduct against the operations manager. The Grievance Committee resolved to remove the termination record and directed him to report for work, and he was reinstated on June 19, 1990. However, the company president was dissatisfied. On June 21, 1990, during a scheduled grievance hearing, the Personnel Manager instructed Mañebo to see the president at his Caloocan office that same day. Mañebo failed to comply as he was attending the grievance hearing as union representative, and found the verbal order unreasonable due to the distance and lack of written instruction. The next day, he was asked to explain his refusal, and on July 14, 1990, the company dismissed him for willful disobedience and serious misconduct. Mañebo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, relying on a Supplemental Position Paper and Memorandum submitted by the private respondents after the case was deemed submitted, which contained new allegations and to which Mañebo was not furnished a copy. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner Christopher Mañebo was lawful and whether procedural due process was observed in the labor proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was unlawful and that there was a denial of due process in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. The Court found that the Labor Arbiter gravely abused his discretion by admitting and considering the private respondents’ Supplemental Position Paper and Memorandum, which contained new allegations and evidence, without furnishing a copy to the petitioner, thereby violating his right to due process. The Court also ruled that the dismissal was not for a just cause. The alleged serious misconduct (the June 1990 incident) had already been resolved by the Grievance Committee, leading to Mañebo’s reinstatement. The order to see the president was not a lawful and reasonable work-related order, as it was issued verbally, required immediate compliance over a long distance, and interfered with his duty as a union representative in a scheduled grievance hearing. Furthermore, the employer failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement for dismissal: the notice specifying the grounds and the notice of termination after the employee is given a reasonable opportunity to answer and be heard. The Court ordered the reinstatement of Mañebo to his former position without loss of seniority rights and with full back wages.