G.R. No. 170661 December 4, 2009
RAMON B. FORMANTES, Petitioner, vs. DUNCAN PHARMACEUTICALS, PHILS., INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramon B. Formantes was employed as a medical representative by respondent Duncan Pharmaceuticals, Phils., Inc. on September 1, 1990, later becoming Acting District Manager for the Ilocos District. On March 18, 1994, he was summoned to the head office and confronted by company officers regarding an allegation that he attempted to sexually force himself upon his subordinate, Cynthia Magat. Petitioner was compelled to take a leave of absence. His salary was withheld, he was not allowed to attend company meetings and activities, his subordinates no longer reported to him, and his functions were taken over without prior notice. Consequently, on April 13, 1994, petitioner filed a case for illegal suspension, constructive dismissal, and payment of salaries and damages.
On April 25, 1994, petitioner received a telegram ordering him to report to the office that same day, which he could not comply with due to time constraints. Respondent subsequently sent several letters charging him with grave misconduct for the alleged sexual abuse, recalling his company car, suspending him for failure to carry out instructions and to return the car, and finally, on May 19, 1994, terminating his employment for insubordination, failure to report, failure to submit operations reports, and failure to turn over the company car.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the dismissal valid for the attempted sexual abuse but penalizing respondent for procedural due process violations. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC but increased the sanction for due process non-compliance. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing he was deprived of due process due to incompetent legal representation, that he was constructively dismissed, and that his dismissal was justified on a ground not alleged in the termination notice.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner was deprived of due process due to alleged incompetent legal representation.
2. Whether petitioner was constructively dismissed.
3. Whether petitioner’s dismissal was validly based on a ground not stated in the notice of termination.

RULING

1. No, petitioner was not deprived of due process. Records show he was represented by competent counsel at various stages of the proceedings. He was represented by Atty. Jannette B. Ines in filing the Complaint, Position Paper, and Reply before the Labor Arbiter and during the initial NLRC hearing. Although non-lawyer Rogelio Bacolor appeared in some hearings and filed a memorandum, petitioner also retained the Guerrero and Turgano Law Office as collaborating counsel, which filed a Supplemental Memorandum and Reply. His motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was filed by the Arnold V. Guerrero Law Offices. He was also represented by counsel in the CA proceedings and by the Argue Law Office in filing the petition before the Supreme Court. The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which was accorded to petitioner through pleadings and representation by multiple lawyers.
2. No, petitioner was not constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer renders the employee’s continued work intolerable. The evidence showed that petitioner was not dismissed or forced to resign when he filed his complaint. The company’s act of compelling him to take a leave was a disciplinary measure pending investigation of a serious charge. His salary was withheld because he did not submit the required operations report and did not report to the office as directed. The takeover of his functions was a temporary measure due to his absence. His refusal to comply with lawful orders to report and to turn over company property constituted willful disobedience, justifying disciplinary action.
3. Yes, the dismissal was for a just cause, notwithstanding the variance between the notice and the ultimate ground. The notice of termination cited insubordination and related failures. However, the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA uniformly found that petitioner was validly dismissed for attempted sexual abuse, a serious misconduct constituting willful breach of trust. The fact that this specific act was not detailed in the termination letter does not invalidate the dismissal, as the essence of the charge—grave misconduct—was communicated to him. The employer’s failure to observe procedural due process does not render the dismissal illegal but only results in liability for nominal damages, which the Court increased to ₱30,000.00.