GR 166211; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166211; July 14, 2008
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. NEPTHALLY B. SALLAO AND ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. (MARIVELES) WORKERS’ UNION, Respondents.
FACTS
Nepthally B. Sallao, an electrician for Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), was implicated in the loss and sale of company electric copper wire cable. An investigation by a security agency reported that Sallao admitted to the act and shared proceeds with co-employees, whose sworn statements detailed his involvement. ATI placed Sallao under preventive suspension and directed him to explain. In his written reply, Sallao denied the allegations and requested a formal investigation with counsel and copies of his co-workers’ statements. ATI dismissed Sallao without granting his request for a hearing.
Sallao filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding just cause and due process. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, ruling the dismissal illegal due to denial of due process, as the unverified and inconsistent sworn statements of co-employees required Sallao be given a chance to confront them. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. ATI elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing substantial evidence existed and technical hearing rules are not strictly applied in labor proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether Sallao was validly dismissed for a just cause and with due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and NLRC, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The dismissal was for a just cause and with due process. On just cause, theft of company property is a valid ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Substantial evidence, consisting of the investigator’s report on Sallao’s admission and the corroborating sworn statements of his co-employees, established his guilt. The sworn statements, though unverified, retained probative value as technical rules of evidence are not strictly observed in labor cases.
On due process, the twin requirements of notice and hearing were satisfied. Sallao received a memorandum detailing the charges and was given a reasonable opportunity to explain in writing, which he did. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. A formal trial-type hearing is not mandatory, especially where the evidence of guilt is substantial. Sallao’s request for counsel and to confront witnesses was not an absolute right in company investigations. ATI’s process, which included an initial investigation, a notice to explain, and consideration of his written defense, complied with legal standards for a valid dismissal.