GR 73992; (November, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 73992 November 14, 1991
ERNESTO MABAYLAN, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HONORABLE BENJAMIN E. PELAEZ and RHINE MARKETING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ernesto Mabaylan was employed as a driver by Rhine Marketing Corporation. In August 1984, he absented himself from work. The company, via a memorandum dated August 6, 1984, required him to explain his absences within twenty-four hours. Petitioner claimed he received the memo on August 8 and immediately went to the branch manager’s office that same afternoon to explain, but the manager had reportedly left. On August 17, he received a second memorandum dated August 14, informing him of his termination effective August 3, 1984, for failure to explain his unauthorized absences and for abandonment of work. Petitioner then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
The ultimate issue is whether petitioner was afforded due process before his dismissal from work.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed due to the employer’s failure to comply with procedural due process. The Labor Code requires the twin requirements of notice and hearing: notice to inform the employee of the intent to dismiss and the reason, and a hearing to afford the employee an opportunity to answer and defend himself. The company’s only evidence of compliance was an unsworn internal memorandum stating petitioner did not report to explain, which was given no evidentiary weight. The Court found the company failed to provide petitioner a proper forum to ventilate his side, constituting an infringement of his constitutional right.
However, the Court also found that petitioner committed various infractions detrimental to the company, which constituted a valid ground for dismissal. Consequently, he was not entitled to reinstatement with backwages. Nevertheless, for its omission to observe due process, the employer was ordered to pay petitioner indemnity in the amount of P3,000.00. The NLRC decision was affirmed with this modification. The ruling balances the employer’s substantive right to dismiss for cause with the procedural sanction for failing to follow the mandated process.