GR 121698; (March, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121698 March 26, 1998
Malaya Shipping Services, Inc., petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Rolando M. Rey, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Malaya Shipping Services, Inc. is a corporation engaged in repairing containers. Respondent Rolando M. Rey was employed as a welder in June 1983. On June 18, 1992, respondent arrived at the company premises at 2:00 p.m., apparently intoxicated. The security guard refused him entry, but he insisted to get his ATM card from the Accounting Department. The CRD Head, Edgardo M. del Rosario, advised him to go home but relented and escorted him. After getting his card, respondent began crying, hurled invectives at co-workers, chased a co-worker, attempted to hit another, and kicked a parked truck. An investigation was scheduled for July 13, 1992. Respondent was suspended and later terminated on August 6, 1992, for serious misconduct. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing the cause was unsubstantiated and he was denied notice and hearing. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal, ordering separation pay, backwages, 13th month pay, accrued vacation leaves, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed but deleted the attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of respondent Rolando M. Rey was valid based on just cause and procedural due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the NLRC decision. It found a valid cause for dismissal existed due to respondent’s serious misconduct, as his drunken, disorderly, and violent behavior on company premises constituted a just cause under the law. However, the dismissal was procedurally defective because the employer failed to fully comply with the twin-notice requirement; while a second notice of termination was sent, the first notice apprising the employee of the charges was absent. This partial compliance violated procedural due process. Consequently, while the dismissal was for a valid cause, the employer must be sanctioned for non-compliance with due process. The Court ordered petitioner to PAY respondent the amount of P5,000.00 as nominal damages, not as indemnity for loss but to vindicate the violated right to procedural due process.