G.R. No. 93070 ; August 9, 1991
Norman De Vera, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Bank of the Philippine Islands, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Norman De Vera, an Assistant Cashier with 25 years of service at BPI’s Taft Avenue Branch, was preventively suspended and later dismissed. The dismissal stemmed from a complex fraud involving a P10-million check from ASB Realty Corporation, which was diverted to the account of Daniel Martinez. De Vera initialed three checks drawn against Martinez’s account, claiming he did so as a validating officer after his superior, Branch Manager Rebecca Dizon, had already approved the encashment. He later discovered his forged signature on a related Time Certificate of Deposit and reported this irregularity to bank officials. An investigation revealed a similar prior fraud involving a P4.7-million check from NAFP-RSBS, also diverted to an account linked to Martinez, with several checks encashed under approvals by Dizon and De Vera.
De Vera received a Notice of Preventive Suspension on June 4, 1987. He was queried by the bank on June 5 and gave a statement to the Criminal Investigation Service on June 8 in connection with an estafa case filed by BPI against Martinez. He was terminated by notice dated July 31, 1987, received on August 3, for alleged gross neglect and involvement in the fraudulent transactions.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was effected with due process.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal violated due process. The twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential. The bank’s investigation, which included the June 5 query and the June 8 CIS statement, was conducted primarily to build a criminal case against Daniel Martinez, not to afford De Vera an opportunity to defend himself against administrative charges. The Court emphasized that an investigation for a criminal complaint does not substitute for the mandatory hearing required in administrative dismissal cases. The bank failed to provide De Vera with a clear written notice stating the specific acts constituting the grounds for his dismissal and, crucially, did not afford him a genuine opportunity to be heard and present his defense regarding his alleged participation. The subsequent notice of termination was a unilateral act without the requisite prior hearing. Consequently, the dismissal was declared illegal for non-compliance with procedural due process. The NLRC decision was set aside, and the Labor Arbiter’s award of separation pay was reinstated, with modification to include full backwages.