GR 154078; (May, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154078 ; May 6, 2005
EDGARDO D. MILLARES, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC. AND AMBROSIO HUGO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Edgardo Millares was a junior cable splicer for PLDT. In August 1995, PLDT management received a complaint from prospective subscriber Celestina Ignacio, alleging that Millares solicited and received P3,800 from her in May 1995 in exchange for expediting the installation of her telephone line, which he failed to do. During a company hearing, Millares initially denied knowing Ignacio but later admitted the offense and promised repayment. PLDT subsequently issued two inter-office memoranda charging him with violating company rules and directing him to submit a written explanation, which he refused. Millares then paid Ignacio the P3,800, after which she executed a written retraction, stating her original complaint was filed because Millares failed to repay a loan.
PLDT found Millares guilty of extortion and serious misconduct and dismissed him. Millares filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement and backwages, heavily relying on Ignacio’s retraction. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding the dismissal valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding Millares’ dismissal for a just cause and with due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the substantive aspect, Millares committed serious misconduct constituting a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Soliciting money from a client for a service connected to one’s employment is inherently unlawful and immoral, an act of grave misconduct regardless of the employee’s actual capacity to deliver the promised service. The Court gave no credence to the retraction, deeming it an unreliable afterthought made only after full payment was received, which does not negate the initial act of dishonesty established by the investigation.
Second, on procedural due process, the Court found Millares was afforded his rights. The employer complied with the twin-notice rule. The two inter-office memoranda served as the first notice, apprising him of the charges and giving him an opportunity to explain. His refusal to respond did not negate the opportunity given. The subsequent notice of dismissal followed. Due process requires only the opportunity to be heard, not an actual hearing. Therefore, his dismissal was both for a just cause and effected with due process.