GR 96497; (May, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96497 May 31, 1993
San Miguel Corporation, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Alfredo Angat, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) hired private respondent Alfredo Angat as a driver on August 16, 1972, assigned to Beer Sales Route No. 7. On September 6, 1986, acting salesman Monico Pamintuan disappeared after collecting from customers. Angat reported the disappearance and turned over P4,747.00, which an audit confirmed. SMC management later discovered a scheme where sales personnel, in connivance with customers, issued Temporary Credit Sales Invoices that did not reflect actual merchandise received, with an understanding to return the merchandise or its monetary equivalent. Angat was grounded effective September 9, 1986, charged with misappropriating company funds, and investigated on September 20, 1986, and February 24, 1987. On August 26, 1987, Angat found his name on a list barring entry to company premises. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on August 1, 1988. During proceedings, Monico Pamintuan executed an affidavit and testified that he conspired with customers and that Angat had no involvement. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Angat, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with back wages and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision that declared the dismissal of Alfredo Angat illegal.
RULING
No, the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion. For a valid dismissal, an employer must show a just or authorized cause under the Labor Code and observe due process, specifically notice and hearing. The investigation conducted by SMC did not constitute a proper hearing as it did not apprise Angat of the charges against him nor give him a meaningful opportunity to present his defense. Furthermore, there was no valid ground for dismissal. The record lacked evidence of wrongdoing by Angat; his admission pertained only to borrowing money from Pamintuan, not merchandise from customers. The testimony of Pamintuan, who admitted sole guilt and absolved Angat, was credible. Thus, the dismissal was illegal, and the orders for reinstatement, back wages, and attorney’s fees were upheld. The petition was dismissed.