G.R. No. 82703 September 15, 1989
MAURO DE LA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RAMIE TEXTILE, INC., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Mauro De la Cruz, was employed as a card machine operator until his dismissal on October 15, 1985. The dismissal stemmed from two incidents on August 7, 1985. First, his department manager reprimanded him for improperly transporting materials by dragging a can instead of using a required cart. Second, after this reprimand, De la Cruz went to the company clinic. The company physician, Dr. Rivera, suspecting he was feigning illness to leave early, advised him to wait for observation. De la Cruz reacted by shouting invectives at her, including “Putang Ina mo!” He was charged with insubordination and misconduct under company rules.
The company informed him of the charges and his right to a hearing before the Grievance Committee as per the collective bargaining agreement. However, he was prevented from reporting for work starting August 15, 1985. The grievance hearing was held on August 27, 1985, after which, based on the committee’s report finding the charges true, management dismissed him. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal, finding his conduct constituted insubordination. De la Cruz’s appeal to the NLRC was dismissed for being filed 21 days after notice of the Arbiter’s decision, exceeding the 10-day reglementary period.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the dismissal of Mauro De la Cruz was effected with due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, applying the precedent set in Wenphil Corp. vs. NLRC. The legal logic is bifurcated, addressing both the substantive cause for dismissal and the procedural aspect. On the substantive ground, the Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that De la Cruz’s act of shouting grave insults at the company physician constituted serious misconduct and insubordination, which is a valid cause for dismissal under the Labor Code. This behavior displayed a willful disregard of lawful authority and company decorum.
However, on the procedural aspect, the Court found a violation of due process. The company effected De la Cruz’s dismissal in substance by preventing him from working on August 15, 1985, which was before the grievance committee hearing was convened on August 27, 1985. Due process in termination cases requires that an employee be accorded notice and hearing before dismissal is carried out. The act of barring him from work constituted a constructive dismissal prior to the investigative hearing, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to defend himself beforehand. Consequently, while the dismissal was for a just cause, the employer failed to observe the mandatory twin-notice and hearing requirement. Following Wenphil, the penalty for this procedural lapse is an indemnity. The Court thus ordered Ramie Textile, Inc. to pay De la Cruz indemnity in the amount of P1,000 for the due process violation, while affirming the validity of the dismissal on the merits. The NLRC’s dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds was rendered moot by this substantive resolution.