G.R. No. 133259 February 10, 2000
WINIFREDO FARROL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES INC. (RCPI), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Winifredo Farrol was employed as a station cashier at RCPI’s Cotabato City branch. An audit on October 1, 1993, revealed a cash shortage of P50,985.37 in the funds under his accountability. Farrol was immediately required to explain the shortage. He subsequently made partial restitution, claiming the missing funds were used to pay employee retirement benefits as earlier referenced by the branch manager. RCPI placed him under preventive suspension and later, on November 22, 1993, sent a termination letter citing loss of trust and confidence due to the cash shortage and violation of company cash-handling procedures. Farrol claimed he never received this termination notice.
Unaware of his termination, Farrol later sought reinstatement after his preventive suspension period. The dispute underwent grievance proceedings and was eventually submitted to voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of Farrol, declaring his dismissal illegal and awarding monetary benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Farrol to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Winifredo Farrol was illegally dismissed from his employment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Farrol was illegally dismissed. The Court found that RCPI failed to comply with the procedural due process requirements for termination. The law mandates twin notices and a hearing opportunity. The first notice must apprise the employee of the specific charges. Here, RCPI’s initial communication merely demanded an explanation for the cash shortage and restitution, which was insufficient to properly inform Farrol of the precise acts constituting the grounds for his dismissal.
More critically, RCPI failed in its burden to prove that the second notice—the written decision stating the reasons for dismissal—was actually served upon Farrol. The company’s claim of sending a termination letter was not substantiated with proof of receipt. Consequently, Farrol was deprived of his right to be notified of the decision and to contest it. This procedural defect rendered the dismissal invalid. The Supreme Court reinstated the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision, ordering RCPI to pay Farrol backwages, separation pay, and other benefits, emphasizing that the requirement of due process is a condition precedent to a valid dismissal.