G.R. No. 89876 November 13, 1992
PANGASINAN III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. (PANELCO III), vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (MANILA), AND ITS SUB-REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH I (DAGUPAN), LABOR ARBITER IRENARCO R. RIMANDO, and LUZON PEREJAS

FACTS

In September 1984, the National Electric Administration (NEA) took over the management of the financially troubled petitioner, Pangasinan III Electric Cooperative, Inc. (PANELCO). An audit and inspection revealed that the private respondent, Luzon Perejas, a meter reader employed since December 21, 1981, had manipulated the kilowatt-hour meter readings of his co-employees (underreading their consumption) between April and November 1984, and had a jumper wire attached to the meter in his own house. On December 1, 1984, PANELCO issued a memorandum requiring Perejas to explain the tampered meter at his residence within twelve hours; he did not answer. A second memorandum on December 3, 1984, again directed an explanation within twelve hours. On December 4, 1984, Perejas submitted a written letter admitting the charge and promising not to repeat it. On December 6, 1984, PANELCO issued another memorandum requiring him to explain within six hours why he manipulated his co-employees’ meter readings. He submitted a written explanation the next day, also admitting the act. On that same date (December 7, 1984), PANELCO issued a notice terminating his employment effective December 8, 1984. Perejas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with back wages. The NLRC modified the decision by reducing the back pay award to six months. PANELCO appealed to the Supreme Court. It is also noted that Perejas was later convicted in a criminal case for illegal use of a jumper.

ISSUE

1. Whether there was just cause for the dismissal of Luzon Perejas.
2. Whether procedural due process was observed in effecting his dismissal.

RULING

1. On Just Cause for Dismissal: YES. The Supreme Court found that there was just cause for dismissal. Perejas’s two written admissions constituted substantial evidence of the charges against him. The offenses—theft of electricity through a jumper and manipulation of meter readings—were dishonest acts prejudicial to the employer and were criminal in nature. The standard of proof in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings is substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt or a preponderance of evidence. The subsequent criminal conviction, while a supervening event, corroborated that the administrative charge was not unfounded. The Court rejected the Labor Arbiter’s disregard of the admissions and the argument that the employer needed to present meter reading cards, as admissions rendered such proof unnecessary. The Court distinguished the cited cases (San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Almira v. B.F. Goodrich Phil.) as involving different factual circumstances (a single non-criminal misdeed and strike participation, respectively, not dishonesty).
2. On Procedural Due Process: NO. The Supreme Court agreed with the Labor Arbiter that the petitioner did not comply with the procedural requirements under Rule XIV, Sections 5 and 6, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. While the memoranda served as written notices stating the charges, Perejas was not afforded “ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.” For the first charge, he effectively had three days from the first memorandum to respond, which was sufficient. However, for the second charge, he was given only six hours to explain and was dismissed immediately upon his admission the next day. No investigation or formal hearing was conducted, and there was no showing that he was offered assistance (like legal representation) or that he waived a formal hearing. The staggered issuance of charges did not cure the procedural defect regarding the second charge.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed decision was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The dismissal was for a lawful cause. However, due to the procedural defect, PANELCO was ordered to pay Luzon Perejas P1,000.00 as indemnity for violation of his right to due process. PANELCO was also ordered to pay him P52.00 as salary differential and P39.00 as deficiency in emergency cost-of-living allowance for November 1984, with legal interest from that date until actual payment.