G.R. No. 172854 ; April 16, 2009
ADAM B. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), LEGAZPI OIL COMPANY, INC., ROMEO F. MERCADO and GUS ZULUAGA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Adam B. Garcia was employed as Production Maintenance Foreman by respondent Legazpi Oil Company, Inc. from April 15, 1991 to February 10, 1995. In December 1992, respondent Romeo F. Mercado, the Plant Operations Manager, instructed Garcia to secure a road grader from the DPWH to prepare the plant road. Garcia arranged for the use of a DPWH road grader under the condition that Legazpi Oil would shoulder fuel, repairs, and operator wages. To circumvent DPWH policy against renting government property for private use, it was agreed to make it appear that a retired DPWH employee, Jesus T. Torregoza, rented out the grader. Legazpi Oil issued checks payable to Torregoza for the services. Torregoza endorsed the checks to Garcia, who encashed them and claimed to have turned over the proceeds to DPWH Engineer Antonio S. Abo, except for ₱1,300.00 used to pay for the DPWH personnel’s food at the canteen.
On November 25, 1994, Torregoza filed a complaint-affidavit with Legazpi Oil, claiming Garcia made him endorse the ₱37,373.32 check and gave him only ₱2,000.00. In a Memorandum dated December 7, 1994, Mercado required Garcia to explain alleged infractions involving dishonesty and breach of trust. Garcia explained he encashed the checks upon Torregoza’s request and gave the proceeds to Engr. Abo. On December 28, 1994, Garcia was placed under preventive suspension. In a Letter dated February 3, 1995, he was further required to explain the unauthorized use of company personnel and materials to repair the road grader. Garcia explained that Mercado had instructed him to assist the DPWH personnel. In a Memorandum dated February 10, 1995, Garcia was dismissed for dishonesty and loss of trust and confidence.
Garcia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal without just cause and due process. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding the dismissal was for just cause but that due process was not fully accorded, awarding Garcia one month salary as indemnity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, finding Garcia’s encashment of the checks dubious and constituting a breach of trust, and that he was afforded due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and in not reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision, specifically on the grounds of lack of just cause and due process in the termination of petitioner’s employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that Garcia was dismissed for a just cause. As a foreman, he held a position of trust and confidence. His act of encashing checks payable to Torregoza, despite the availability of a simpler method like Torregoza endorsing the checks directly to the DPWH personnel, was irregular and gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of dishonesty, justifying the loss of trust and confidence by his employer. The Court found the affidavits of Engr. Abo and de la Torre insufficient to exculpate Garcia due to inconsistencies and the inherent suspicion surrounding the private use of government property.
Regarding due process, the Court ruled that Garcia was afforded the requisite notice and opportunity to be heard. He was apprised of the charges against him through memoranda and was given the opportunity to submit written explanations. Due process in administrative proceedings does not require a trial-type hearing. Therefore, his dismissal was both for a just cause and in accordance with due process.