G.R. No. L-51314. June 21, 1990.
EDMUND YAP, petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, in his capacity as DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR and ASSOCIATED CITIZENS BANK, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edmund Yap was employed by respondent Associated Citizens Bank as Assistant Vice-President and Branch Manager. Following a merger between Associated Banking Corporation and Citizens Bank and Trust Company, the bank’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution declaring all corporate positions vacant. By a letter dated January 13, 1977, the bank informed Yap that he was not re-elected to his position and that his employment was terminated effective December 31, 1976, citing non-election and redundancy as grounds. The effective date was later moved to February 28, 1977. Yap filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Regional Director dismissed the complaint, ruling that Yap, as a managerial employee, could be dismissed without prior clearance and that sufficient grounds existed. On appeal, the Deputy Minister of Labor partially reversed the order. He found that redundancy was a stated cause for termination, entitling Yap to separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service, and awarded him P14,000.00. However, the Deputy Minister upheld the validity of the dismissal itself. Yap filed this petition for certiorari, arguing illegal dismissal and a denial of due process in the proceedings.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether Yap’s dismissal was for a just and valid cause, and (2) whether he was deprived of due process during the proceedings before the Regional Director.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Deputy Minister’s order. On the first issue, the dismissal was valid. The Court recognized the management prerogative to conduct business affairs, including reorganization or merger to meet enterprise demands. Following the merger, the bank’s Board had the prerogative to declare corporate positions vacant. Yap, as Assistant Vice-President and Branch Manager, was a managerial employee. The Court cited established policy that the tenure of corporate officers and managerial employees is distinct; they serve at the pleasure of the board and can be terminated for lack of confidence or due to corporate restructuring. The findings of the Deputy Minister on the propriety of dismissal, being supported by evidence and within his expertise, are accorded respect and finality absent grave abuse of discretion.
On the second issue, there was no denial of due process. Records showed Yap was given ample opportunity to present his case. He submitted his position paper during the hearing, and the respondent bank filed its own. He also filed a memorandum on appeal. The procedure where issues are resolved based on position papers and documentary evidence, without a formal trial, is recognized in labor proceedings and does not violate due process, as technical rules of evidence are not binding. The law presumes regularity in the performance of official functions by labor officials.