G.R. No. 96895 January 21, 1993
OSCAR L. PILI, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOHNSON AND JOHNSON (PHIL.), INC., DANTE MORANTE AND PRIMO H. MENDOZA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Oscar L. Pili was hired by respondent Johnson and Johnson (Phil.), Inc. on July 13, 1978, and became a regular employee in July 1980. On March 4, 1985, the respondent company issued a termination letter effective March 6, 1985, dismissing petitioner for violating the company’s “Personnel Practice Policy,” which prohibits hiring personnel related to existing employees within the fourth degree of affinity or consanguinity. The company charged petitioner with falsifying his application for employment by concealing that he had an uncle (his mother’s brother) already employed there. Petitioner protested his dismissal and sought to settle the dispute through the Grievance Procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The Grievance Committee convened on March 18, 1985, but upheld the dismissal. Petitioner’s attempts to elevate the grievance to subsequent steps were unsuccessful, as the labor union considered the case closed. Petitioner then filed a case for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, discrimination, and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 130. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding the dismissal to be with just cause, but ordered the payment of salaries from May 31, 1989, to the promulgation of its resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner Oscar L. Pili was for a just and valid cause, and whether his right to due process was violated.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, ANNULLED and SET ASIDE the NLRC resolution, and ordered the private respondent to reinstate petitioner to his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits, with backwages equivalent to three (3) years, to pay attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award, and to pay petitioner One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for violation of his right to due process. The Court ruled that the alleged falsification and/or concealment in petitioner’s application form was not proven by substantial evidence. The alterations in the application form, which pertained to the name of his relative, were not clearly shown to have been made by petitioner. Furthermore, the respondent company approved the application and regularized petitioner, waiting almost seven (7) years before dismissing him, which suggested a waiver of the company policy. The constitutional guarantee of protection to labor and security of tenure requires that dismissal be for valid and just causes supported by substantial evidence, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of labor. Additionally, the Court found that petitioner’s dismissal without a hearing prior to termination violated his constitutional right to due process, as he was only allowed to avail of the grievance procedure after his dismissal.