GR 115785; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115785 August 4, 2000
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4th Division), and RAUL G. DIAMANTE, respondents.
FACTS
Raul Diamante was an Integrated Ticket Representative for Philippine Airlines (PAL) in Bacolod. In April 1988, a passenger, Edgardo Pineda, alleged that he gave Diamante four tickets and P1,000.00 to facilitate bookings for fully booked flights. Pineda later executed an affidavit charging Diamante with bribery. PAL required Diamante to comment and subsequently charged him administratively with violating its Code of Discipline for receiving consideration in connection with his duties. An ad-hoc committee conducted an investigation where Diamante appeared with counsel. A planned confrontation with Pineda did not materialize due to scheduling conflicts. The committee resolved the case based on the record and Diamante was dismissed.
Diamante filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal as valid. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision, declaring the dismissal illegal, citing a denial of due process because Diamante was not able to confront Pineda. It ordered reinstatement with three years’ backwages. PAL’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Raul Diamante was illegally dismissed due to a denial of due process.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted PAL’s petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. On the substantive aspect, the Court found that Diamante violated PAL’s Code of Discipline, which constitutes a just cause for dismissal under management prerogative. An employer has the right to discipline employees and impose penalties pursuant to company rules.
On the procedural aspect, Diamante was afforded due process. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to be heard, not necessarily a formal trial-type hearing or a confrontation. Diamante was given notice of the charge via a letter requiring his comment, he submitted a sworn statement, he participated in the investigation with the assistance of counsel and a union representative, and he was notified of the dismissal. The inability to confront the complainant did not vitiate the process, as he was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his side. Therefore, his dismissal was for a just cause and met procedural requirements. The NLRC’s order for reinstatement with backwages lacked factual and legal basis.