G.R. No. 165995 ; August 14, 2007
SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION (SDCWA-UWP), EDGAR VILLENA, and JERRY G. COLCOL, Petitioners, vs. SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DOMINGO GAW, JR., OWNER/PRESIDENT, and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Edgar Villena and Jerry G. Colcol were employees of Solid Development Corporation. On March 29, 1999, company owner Domingo Gaw, Jr. confronted Villena for loafing. Villena responded with disrespectful remarks, including ethnic slurs against Gaw (“Kayong talagang mga intsik”), both during the initial encounter and later at a meeting Gaw called. Villena was served an infraction report for disrespect and habitual violations, leading to his dismissal on May 3, 1999, for serious misconduct and gross neglect. Separately, on August 6, 1998, Colcol refused his supervisor’s order to operate a carding machine, claiming he did not know how. He was charged with insubordination and poor work performance and was subsequently dismissed.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding their dismissals illegal. For Colcol, the infraction report was defective and his refusal was justified. For Villena, the 12-hour period to explain was too short and a formal hearing was lacking. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding valid grounds for dismissal and sufficient procedural due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC with modification, granting Colcol separation pay.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissals of petitioners Edgar Villena and Jerry G. Colcol were for a just cause and effected with due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The dismissals were valid. For a dismissal to be lawful, it must be for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code and must satisfy procedural due process. Villena’s act of uttering disrespectful and insulting remarks, including ethnic slurs, towards his employer constituted serious misconduct. Such behavior, directly challenging authority and company discipline, provided a valid ground for termination. Colcol’s refusal to obey a lawful work order, given his role as an all-around mechanic familiar with company machinery, constituted willful insubordination.
Procedural due process was satisfied. Both employees were served with infraction reports detailing the charges and were given the opportunity to explain their sides in writing within a specified period. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. A formal trial-type hearing is not mandatory. The requirement was met when they were accorded a chance to explain. The fact that they did not submit written explanations or request more time negates any claim of denial of due process. Notices of termination informing them of the basis for dismissal were also sent. Therefore, the dismissals were for just cause and complied with procedural requirements.