G.R. No. 183383. April 5, 2010.
ANABEL BENJAMIN and RENATO CONSOLACION, Petitioners, vs. AMELLAR CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

Amellar Corporation provides IT services to LGUs. Petitioner Anabel Benjamin was the Project Data Controller and officer-in-charge of its Content Build-Up Department. Petitioner Renato Consolacion, a supervising data controller in the Imus project, reported to her. In March 2003, the company received a client complaint about incomplete data in Mabini, Batangas. Technology Manager Melvin Tandoc issued a memorandum to Anabel, citing this complaint and an allegation that Consolacion gave oral instructions to skip encoding payments to meet deadlines. Anabel was ordered to explain and to require explanations from Consolacion and another supervisor, Evangeline Repiano.
Consolacion submitted his written explanation. Dissatisfied, Tandoc informed Anabel a formal investigation would be held. Anabel notified Consolacion it would be in the “4th week of April” without a specific date. On April 23, Tandoc directed Anabel to inform Consolacion and Evangeline of a hearing that same afternoon. Respondent alleged Anabel failed to inform Consolacion, leading to her preventive suspension for “obstructing due process.” She filed an illegal suspension complaint. Meanwhile, hearings were held for Consolacion, who purportedly admitted certain failures. Evangeline was cleared and commended.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that both petitioners were illegally dismissed. For Consolacion, his dismissal for willful breach of trust and gross neglect was invalid. His act of instructing the separation of recent payment records to systematize work, while a lapse in failing to provide written instructions, did not constitute willful breach of trust. There was no proof of malicious intent to defraud the company or its client. His actions amounted to simple neglect, not the gross and habitual neglect required for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. For Anabel, her dismissal based on the charges in the May 6, 2003 memorandum was also illegal. The charges were vague and lacked particularity, failing to meet the substantive due process requirement that an employee must be adequately informed of the accusations against them to prepare a proper defense. The “annex” referenced in the memorandum did not cure this fatal vagueness. Furthermore, her preventive suspension was unjustified as her alleged act of not informing Consolacion of the hearing did not pose a “serious and imminent threat” to life or property as required by the rules. The Court ordered reinstatement and payment of full backwages.