G.R. No. 180718; October 23, 2009
HENLIN PANAY COMPANY and/or EDWIN FRANCISCO/ANGEL LAZARO III, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and NORY A. BOLANOS, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Nory A. Bolanos was employed as a service crew by petitioner Henlin Panay Company. On July 8, 2005, her brother-in-law, Febe Javier, ordered food from her counter. After his initial order, Javier later ordered additional items from a different counter manned by Fe Niyam Combo. Petitioner Edwin Francisco, the store supervisor, later noticed that the journal tape for Bolanos’s counter did not reflect the additional items. When he checked the other counter’s tape, it also did not show the correct items, as Combo admitted she may have made an erroneous entry. Despite Combo’s admission and Bolanos’s offer to have her brother-in-law corroborate the story, Francisco dismissed her explanations.
The following day, Francisco informed Bolanos over the phone that she was dismissed from service for dishonesty, claiming she released food without payment. Bolanos protested the lack of a formal notice and investigation. Petitioners presented a contrasting version, alleging Bolanos offered to pay for the items and was speechless when confronted about dishonesty. They claimed an investigation was ongoing when Bolanos preemptively filed an illegal dismissal complaint.

ISSUE

Whether or not the dismissal of Nory A. Bolanos was legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. The employer failed to satisfy the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process. Substantively, the charge of dishonesty was not proven by substantial evidence. The factual findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which are accorded respect and finality, established that the discrepancy in the cash register was due to a co-employee’s admitted error at a different counter, not due to any fraudulent act by Bolanos. Petitioners’ reliance on their own version of events was insufficient to overturn these consistent findings.
Procedurally, Bolanos was denied due process. She was summarily dismissed without being served a written notice specifying the grounds for termination and without being given a real opportunity to be heard. Francisco’s unilateral declaration of dismissal, his refusal to consider Bolanos’s evidence, and his statement that a notice was unnecessary constituted a blatant disregard of the mandatory two-notice rule under the Labor Code. Consequently, Bolanos was entitled to reinstatement or separation pay and full backwages. The Court of Appeals decision was affirmed with modification regarding the computation of monetary awards.