G.R. No. 168876 & G.R. No. 172093, February 10, 2009
PHILIPPINE PASAY CHUNG HUA ACADEMY and EMILIO CHING, Petitioners, vs. SERVANDO L. EDPAN, Respondent. / SERVANDO L. EDPAN, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE PASAY CHUNG HUA ACADEMY and EMILIO CHING, Respondents.

FACTS

Servando Edpan was a high school teacher at Philippine Pasay Chung Hua Academy (PPCHA). On April 10, 2002, PPCHA received a letter-complaint from the parents of a minor student, AAA, alleging that Edpan committed lascivious acts against their daughter on April 5, 2002. The complaint was supported by AAA’s sworn statement. On April 11, 2002, Edpan received letters from the school directress notifying him of the complaint, placing him under a 30-day preventive suspension without pay pending investigation, instructing him to submit a written explanation within 24 hours, and informing him that he would be notified to attend a preliminary investigation. Edpan submitted a letter denying the allegations. In a follow-up letter, he requested a five-day advance notice of the investigation and copies of the complaint and evidence. PPCHA, by letter dated April 22, 2002, required Edpan to report to school and submit his reply to the complaint and sworn statement. On May 2, 2002, Edpan submitted his reply-affidavit, attaching character testimonials from students and alumni. On May 9, 2002, Edpan received a notice of termination effective May 11, 2002, on the grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. Edpan filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but ordered payment of unpaid summer class salaries and proportionate 13th month pay. The NLRC modified the decision by ordering PPCHA to indemnify Edpan ₱10,000 for failure to strictly comply with due process prior to termination. The Court of Appeals issued conflicting decisions: one division (CA-G.R. SP No. 80757) affirmed the NLRC with modification, ordering payment of full backwages, unpaid salaries, and proportionate 13th month pay, finding a lack of procedural due process; another division (CA-G.R. SP No. 80779) affirmed the NLRC but deleted the ₱10,000 indemnity, finding procedural due process was complied with.

ISSUE

Did PPCHA observe procedural due process when it dismissed Edpan?

RULING

Yes, PPCHA observed procedural due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential. The law requires two written notices: (1) a notice specifying the grounds for termination and giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to explain, and (2) a notice of termination indicating that grounds have been established to justify dismissal. Regarding a hearing, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, not that an actual hearing must always be held. In this case, PPCHA complied: it sent Edpan a written notice informing him of the complaint and requiring a written explanation; it furnished him copies of the complaint and sworn statement and required his reply; Edpan submitted his written explanation and reply-affidavit with supporting documents; and only after these opportunities did PPCHA serve the notice of dismissal. Thus, even without a formal hearing or conference, the requirement of due process was met since Edpan was accorded a chance to explain his side. The Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 80757 were set aside. The Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 80779 were affirmed, upholding the valid dismissal and the deletion of the ₱10,000 indemnity.