G.R. No. 91344 September 14, 1990
FRANCISCO P. CANDO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PILIPINAS BANK, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco P. Cando was a senior distributing clerk and a union officer at Pilipinas Bank. Following a union strike in September 1984, the Ministry of Labor issued a return-to-work order on October 29, 1984. While other striking employees complied, Cando failed to report for work continuously from October 29, 1984, to the end of February 1985, a period exceeding four months. His absence was only briefly covered by an approved leave from November 5 to 21, 1984. His time cards for December 1984 and January 1985 bore entries like “union matter” and “hearing,” while his February 1985 time card was blank, rendering these absences unauthorized.
The bank required Cando to explain his absences within 48 hours via a March 4, 1985 memorandum. He submitted his explanation on March 7, 1985, citing urgent union matters. The bank subsequently filed an administrative charge for gross and habitual neglect of duties, informed him of the charges and his right to a hearing, and requested his written reply. Cando submitted a reply but did not request a formal hearing. An investigating committee found him guilty, leading to his dismissal effective May 7, 1985.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court treated the erroneously labeled “petition for review” as a special civil action for certiorari. The legal logic centered on the validity of the dismissal based on just cause and procedural due process.
Substantively, the Court found Cando’s prolonged, unauthorized absences constituted gross and habitual neglect of duties, a valid ground for dismissal under the Labor Code. He failed to comply with bank rules requiring proper leave applications. His defense that absences were for union matters and were condoned by superiors was unsubstantiated. The labor arbiter noted his cross-examination revealed he could not recall specific union matters or hearings justifying his absences, undermining his credibility. No proof of condonation was presented.
Procedurally, the Court held the bank satisfied due process requirements. Cando was given written notice of the charge, a reasonable opportunity to explain (via the March 4 memo and subsequent administrative charge), and an opportunity to defend himself during the bank’s investigation where he chose not to request a hearing. The NLRC’s factual findings, supported by substantial evidence from the investigation and arbitration proceedings, are accorded finality. Thus, the dismissal was for a just cause and effected with due process.