GR 143204; (June, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143204, June 26, 2001
Hyatt Taxi Services Inc., petitioner, vs. Rustom M. Catinoy, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rustom M. Catinoy was hired as a taxi driver by petitioner Hyatt Taxi Services Inc. on October 10, 1992. He was also the Secretary of the Hyatt Taxi Employees Association, the exclusive bargaining representative of the company’s drivers. On August 21, 1995, Catinoy discovered his drawer in the union office had been forcibly opened by the acting Union President, Tomas Saturnino. An argument ensued, leading to a fistfight where Saturnino hit Catinoy, causing him to lose a tooth. Catinoy filed a criminal complaint. On August 25, 1995, the Union’s Chairman, Jaime Dublin, issued a memorandum to the company’s Operations Manager recommending the indefinite suspension of both Catinoy and Saturnino pending investigation for violating company rules and union policies. On August 26, 1995, the company’s Assistant Vice-President issued a memorandum placing Catinoy under preventive suspension for 30 days. Catinoy filed a complaint for illegal suspension on August 28, 1995. After the 30-day suspension lapsed, Catinoy reported for work but was not allowed to resume his duties. On October 12, 1995, he amended his complaint to include constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the preventive suspension illegal and ruled that Catinoy was constructively dismissed, ordering reinstatement, backwages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC initially affirmed this but later modified its decision by deleting the award of backwages. The Court of Appeals annulled the NLRC’s modified decision and reinstated the original NLRC decision which included backwages.
ISSUE
1. Whether the preventive suspension of respondent was valid.
2. Whether respondent was constructively dismissed.
RULING
1. The preventive suspension was without just cause and without due process. The company failed to conduct its own investigation and merely relied on the union’s recommendation. The suspension was implemented without giving Catinoy an opportunity to explain his side, violating the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process.
2. Yes, respondent was constructively dismissed. After the lapse of the preventive suspension period, petitioner failed to reinstate respondent. Petitioner’s inaction and its precondition that respondent withdraw his complaints against the union president and the company itself undermined his security of tenure. The Court of Appeals correctly reinstated the NLRC’s original decision finding constructive dismissal and awarding backwages, reinstatement, and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals.