G.R. No. 146762 , G.R. No. 153584, G.R. No. 163793; January 30, 2007
CULVER B. SUICO, TERESA D. CENIZA, RONALD R. DACUT, and BENIGNO MARIANO, JR., Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT); PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT), Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO BORJE, Respondent.

FACTS

The consolidated cases involve employees of PLDT who participated in a strike in September 1997. The Department of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction and issued a return-to-work order. The employees continued picketing, and an incident occurred where a managerial employee, Ann Detelou Fernando, was allegedly assaulted and injured by strikers. The implicated employees were served notices requiring them to explain in writing the charges of serious misconduct and participation in an illegal strike. The employees did not submit written explanations but instead invoked company policy, requesting a formal hearing and copies of supporting documents before they would answer.
PLDT insisted that the employees first submit their written explanations as required by the initial notices before any formal hearing could be set. The employees persisted in their demand for a hearing without providing the written explanation. Consequently, PLDT terminated their employment for serious misconduct and participation in prohibited activities during an illegal strike. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissals illegal, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, upholding the dismissals.

ISSUE

Whether the employees were illegally dismissed, specifically focusing on whether PLDT afforded them procedural due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the employees were legally dismissed. On substantive grounds, the Court found the employees participated in an illegal strike and committed acts of violence, which constitute serious misconduct and a valid ground for termination under Article 282 (now 297) and Article 264 of the Labor Code. The strike was deemed illegal as it defied a valid return-to-work order issued by the DOLE Secretary.
On procedural due process, the Court held it was duly observed. The twin requirements of notice and hearing were satisfied. The employees received detailed notices of charge. Their right to a hearing was not absolute and could be waived. By refusing to submit the required written explanation—a clear step in the disciplinary process—and insisting on a precondition not immediately mandated by law, the employees effectively waived their right to be heard. The employer is not obligated to hold a formal hearing when the employee, without valid justification, fails to participate in the preliminary stages of the investigation. PLDT’s decision to proceed based on the evidence at hand, which included Fernando’s statement, was justified under the circumstances. Therefore, the dismissals were for a just cause and effected with due process. The NLRC decisions were affirmed.