G.R. No. 162447 , December 27, 2006
Anabelle Muaje-Tuazon and Almer R. Abing, petitioners, vs. Wenphil Corporation, Elizabeth P. Orbita, and the Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Anabelle Muaje-Tuazon and Almer R. Abing were branch managers for respondent Wenphil Corporation, operator of Wendy’s food chains. The company conducted a sales promotion contest across its branches. Following the contest, management received reports that several branches, including those previously managed by the petitioners, had engaged in cheating to inflate sales. An internal investigation was conducted. Petitioners were summoned, notified of the charges, and placed under preventive suspension. After hearings, they were dismissed for dishonesty and serious misconduct amounting to a willful breach of trust.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing they were dismissed without just cause and denied due process. They claimed the real reason for termination was their demands for overtime and holiday pay. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, finding the evidence of cheating insufficient. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the illegal dismissal but declared the preventive suspension legal. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, finding substantial evidence of misconduct and sufficient compliance with due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding that petitioners were validly dismissed for just cause and with due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural aspect, the Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which questions the NLRC’s decision, is limited to reviewing jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals correctly found that the NLRC acted without basis when it disregarded the affidavits and evidence presented by the employer.
On the substantive merits, the Court held that there was just cause for dismissal. As branch managers, petitioners held positions of trust and confidence. Evidence, including witness affidavits and documentary proof, established anomalies in the sales contest under their management. Under the principle of command responsibility, they could be held liable for negligence in their managerial duties to prevent fraud. Their bare denials could not overcome this evidence. The affidavits, though executed after the company investigation, pertained to facts discussed during the proceedings and substantiated the loss of trust.
Regarding due process, the Court ruled it was satisfied. Petitioners received two written notices: one detailing the charges and inviting them to a hearing, and another informing them of their dismissal. They were given the opportunity to explain and defend themselves during the investigation. The requirement for a hearing does not demand a formal trial-type proceeding, and the company complied with the twin-notice rule. Thus, the dismissal was both for a valid cause and effected with due process.