G.R. No. 116473 September 12, 1997
WILFREDO R. CAMUA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and HERBERT S. DEE JR./HOOVEN PHILS. INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Wilfredo R. Camua was first hired as a casual employee by private respondent Hooven Phil. Inc. on November 18, 1986. He became a permanent employee on October 8, 1987, working as an anodizing aide and later as a quality assurance inspector. From April to October 1989, the company received customer complaints about product quality. Based on these, the company found petitioner grossly negligent and possibly guilty of fraud. On October 26, 1989, Edgardo S. Crisostomo recommended petitioner’s dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, which was approved by respondent Herbert S. Dee, Jr. on October 27, 1989. Implementation was delayed as the company allegedly wanted to catch petitioner in flagrante delicto, but this failed as petitioner allegedly learned of the plan. Petitioner was finally dismissed on November 30, 1989. On January 23, 1990, petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of 13th month pay. The 13th month pay was settled, leaving dismissal as the sole issue. The Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal, but the NLRC reversed this decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner was dismissed without due process.
2. Whether petitioner was dismissed for a just cause.

RULING

1. Yes, petitioner was dismissed without due process. The law requires two notices: one apprising the employee of the acts or omissions warranting dismissal, and another informing him of the decision to dismiss. Both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC found no written notice of charges was given. For the second notice, respondents claimed a written memorandum on November 30, 1989, but petitioner refused receipt; they could have sent it by registered mail but did not. Thus, there is no evidence the required notices were given. Private respondents are ordered to pay petitioner P1,000 as indemnity for violation of his right to due process.
2. The evidence does not sustain the NLRC’s finding of dishonesty, as the only support was “unconfirmed reports” of a scheme where petitioner allegedly certified non-company products as defective. However, the evidence does prove gross negligence. Records, including Aluminum Transfer Slips and Field Inspection Reports, show that a total of 54 aluminum sections were found defective after reinspection, at least 26 of which had been certified as good quality by petitioner on specific dates in 1989. The defects were visible to the naked eye. Gross negligence resulting in loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissal. Nevertheless, as a measure of social justice, separation pay may be awarded where the cause is not serious misconduct reflecting on moral character. Therefore, the dismissal was for a just cause, but petitioner is entitled to separation pay at the rate of one month salary for every year of service, based on his salary at the time of dismissal.
The NLRC decision is AFFIRMED with the modification that private respondents are ORDERED jointly and severally to pay petitioner P1,000 as indemnity and separation pay.