GR 154315; (May, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154315 ; May 9, 2005
PHILIPPINE PIZZA, INC., and JANET RUTH M. SOLSOLOY, petitioners, vs. KIM M. BUNGABONG, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Kim Bungabong, a food attendant, was dismissed by petitioners Philippine Pizza, Inc. (Pizza Hut) for allegedly consuming company beer with a co-employee, Felix Sabado, on December 6, 1997. The Duty Manager, Alvin Biscocho, did not witness the act but relied on a report from a driver, Jonathan Andra, who claimed to have seen Bungabong drinking. Bungabong was issued an offense notice, preventively suspended, and subjected to an investigation. During the investigation, Andra, a security guard, and another crew member gave statements implicating Bungabong. After the investigation, he was informed of his termination.
Bungabong filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the testimonies against him fabricated and concluding he was dismissed without just cause. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the petitioners’ certiorari petition, upholding the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing dismissal was for loss of trust and confidence and that due process was observed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the findings that respondent was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling, finding the dismissal valid for a just cause but procedurally defective. On the substantive aspect, the Court held that loss of trust and confidence, as a ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, was sufficiently proven. The Court found the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion of fabricated evidence unsupported. The sworn statements of three witnesses—Andra, security guard Rossman Manaloto, and crew member Daniel Gatdula—constituted substantial evidence that Bungabong participated in the misconduct. As a food attendant with access to the premises, his act of consuming company property without consent breached the trust inherent in his position.
However, the Court found procedural due process was not complied with. The “offense notice” given to Bungabong failed to meet the standard of a proper written notice stating the specific grounds for termination. Furthermore, while an investigation was conducted, the requirement of a hearing where the employee can personally explain his side was not satisfied. Consequently, while the dismissal was for a valid cause, the procedural lapse warranted an award of nominal damages. The petitioners were ordered to pay Bungabong the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) for such non-compliance.