GR 90786; (September, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 90786 September 27, 1991
ESPERO SANTOS SAIAW, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ASSOCIATED BANK AND/OR JOSE R. TENGCO, Chairman of the Board, ROLLIE TUAZON, Manager, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Espero Santos Saiaw was employed by Associated Bank as a credit investigator-appraiser. In November 1984, the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) extracted a sworn statement from him without the assistance of counsel, wherein he allegedly admitted to conspiring with a co-employee to sell foreclosed assets and divide the proceeds. Based on this statement, the bank initiated an investigation. The bank manager, Rollie Tuazon, sent Saiaw a letter scheduling a hearing before the Personnel Discipline and Investigation Committee (PDIC) but explicitly stated it was to be conducted “without counsel or representative.” Subsequently, on April 1, 1985, Saiaw was terminated for serious misconduct and breach of trust.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was legally justified.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal due to violations of both substantive and procedural due process. Procedurally, the bank’s investigation committee denied Saiaw his constitutional right to due process by expressly prohibiting him from having the assistance of counsel or a representative during the PDIC hearing. This contravened Section 5, Rule XIV, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, which mandates that an employer must afford a worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative if he so desires. The Court emphasized that the requirements of notice and hearing are indispensable; the denial of counsel vitiated the fairness of the proceedings. Substantively, the sole basis for the dismissal was the sworn statement obtained by the CIS without counsel, which is inadmissible in evidence. With this statement excluded, there was no valid evidence to support the finding of guilt. Consequently, the dismissal was characterized by undue haste and a lack of evidentiary basis. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering Saiaw’s reinstatement with full backwages and benefits.