G.R. No. 176893; June 13, 2012
VICENTE VILLANUEVA, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION THIRD DIVISION, MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, MANUEL LOPEZ, Chairman and CEO, and FRANCISCO COLLANTES, Manager, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Villanueva was a bill collector and branch representative for Manila Electric Company (Meralco). In 2002, an investigation was initiated based on reports of “unusual contract modifications” in his transactions. It was alleged that Villanueva collected ₱1,240.00 from customers for service and meter deposits but issued official receipts for only ₱930.00, pocketing the ₱310.00 difference. Sworn statements from nine complaining customers identified him, and his team leaders corroborated the irregularities, noting he never reported any collection overages.
Villanueva was formally notified of the charges and attended a hearing with counsel, who submitted a counter-affidavit. In it, Villanueva denied the accusations, explaining that contract modifications were sometimes necessary due to field recommendations for higher electrical loads and that any discrepancies would be balanced at day’s end. Meralco denied his counsel’s request to cross-examine the customer-witnesses, stating the investigation was not the proper forum for such. After review, Meralco found him guilty of dishonesty and terminated his employment for serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the validity of Villanueva’s dismissal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. On substantive grounds, the employer successfully discharged its burden of proving a just cause for termination. The findings of fact, based on substantial evidence including sworn customer statements and corroborating testimonies from company officers, established that Villanueva committed acts of dishonesty by misappropriating excess deposits. As a branch representative handling collections, his position was one of trust and confidence. His fraudulent acts constituted serious misconduct and a willful breach of that trust, valid grounds for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
On procedural grounds, Villanueva was afforded due process. He received a notice specifying the charges, was given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing with legal counsel, and was able to submit a written explanation defending himself. The denial of his request to cross-examine the non-employee witnesses did not violate due process, as the essence of the right is the opportunity to explain one’s side, which he was granted. The requirements of twin notices and a hearing were satisfied. Consequently, his dismissal was both for a just cause and effected with due process.