G.R. No. 173189; February 13, 2013
Jonathan I. Sang-an, Petitioner, vs. Equator Knights Detective and Security Agency, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jonathan I. Sang-an was the Assistant Operation Manager of respondent security agency, tasked with safekeeping its firearms. On April 21, 2001, two firearms were discovered missing, and investigation pointed to Jonathan. He was placed under preventive suspension on April 24, 2001. While suspended, a security guard was apprehended on May 8, 2001 for possessing an unlicensed firearm, which he claimed was issued by Jonathan. The respondent agency subsequently terminated Jonathan’s employment.
Jonathan filed a complaint for illegal suspension, later treated as illegal dismissal, alleging lack of due process. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding just cause for dismissal. The NLRC affirmed the existence of just cause but ruled Jonathan was denied procedural due process, awarding him backwages. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding substantial compliance with due process as the second offense was raised in the agency’s position paper during the illegal suspension case.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether posting a cash or surety bond is required for a Rule 65 petition for certiorari assailing an NLRC decision; and (2) whether Jonathan was validly dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the bond requirement under Article 223 of the Labor Code applies only to appeals from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action questioning jurisdictional errors, not an appeal; hence, no bond is required for its filing.
On the second issue, the Court found the dismissal substantively valid but procedurally infirm. Substantively, Jonathan’s actions constituted serious misconduct and willful breach of trust. His failure to account for two missing firearms and his issuance of an unlicensed firearm during his suspension, a criminal offense under election gun ban rules, eroded the trust essential to his managerial role, constituting just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Procedurally, however, the Court found a denial of due process. The required twin notices—a notice specifying the grounds for dismissal and a notice of the decision after hearing—were not properly served. The suspension letter did not suffice as a charge, and no formal notice of termination was shown. Consequently, while the dismissal was for a just cause, the employer is liable for nominal damages for procedural non-compliance. The Court awarded Jonathan ₱30,000 as nominal damages.