GR 75052 53; (August, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 75052 -53; August 12, 1991
TAIHEI COMPANY LTD. AND MARITIME FACTORS, INC., petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THE PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION AND RODOLFO E. GRAMPA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Rodolfo Grampa was hired by petitioner Taihei Company, Ltd. as a Chief Engineer under an 18-month contract. His employment commenced on October 15, 1983. On April 7, 1984, he was dismissed by the company’s Operations Manager for alleged offenses including insubordination, incompetence, and poor relations with co-workers, based on reports from superiors and crewmates. Grampa submitted a written explanation refuting the charges on April 11, 1984, but was repatriated on April 21, 1984. Upon his return to the Philippines, Grampa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The POEA ruled in his favor, awarding him unearned salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract. The NLRC affirmed this decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the POEA’s finding that Grampa was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC resolution. The Court held that the findings of the POEA and NLRC on the factual issues, including the illegality of the dismissal, are conclusive and binding as they are not tainted with arbitrariness. The Court emphasized it is not a trier of facts. On the merits, the Court found that the petitioner failed to comply with both the contractual and statutory due process requirements for termination. The Crew Agreement required claims to be resolved through a grievance procedure, the NSB, and Philippine courts, in that order, which was not followed. More critically, the petitioner did not observe the procedural safeguards under the Labor Code’s implementing rules, which mandate written notice, an opportunity for the employee to answer and be heard, and a written decision stating the reasons for dismissal. The notice of charges given to Grampa did not indicate the date of receipt or the period to answer, and the decision to dismiss was made on April 4, 1984, before his explanation was even received on April 11. The subsequent opportunity to be heard before the POEA and NLRC did not cure this fatal defect in the pre-dismissal procedural due process. The dismissal was therefore illegal.