G.R. No. L-52364 and G.R. No. L-53349, March 25, 1983
RICARDO VALLADOLID, petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, Deputy Minister of Labor, and COPACABANA APARTMENT-HOTEL, respondents. / J.R.M. & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, HON. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, and RICARDO VALLADOLID, respondents.

FACTS

Ricardo Valladolid was employed by J.R.M. & Co., Inc., owner-operator of Copacabana Apartment-Hotel. After the death of a principal stockholder, a family rift led to Copacabana and Tropicana Apartment-Hotel, also previously under JRM, becoming competing businesses. JRM management suspected Valladolid of leaking confidential information to Tropicana. To confirm this, they orchestrated an entrapment in November 1978, creating a fictitious P500,000 cash voucher and check. As anticipated, details of this fabricated transaction were relayed to Tropicana’s management by Valladolid. Confronted with this betrayal of trust, JRM requested Valladolid’s transfer to Tropicana, which was refused.
Valladolid subsequently went on a pre-approved five-day vacation leave starting December 30, 1978. He then sent a telegram requesting a 15-day sick leave. He did not return to work thereafter. On February 5, 1979, JRM filed an application for clearance to terminate Valladolid, citing loss of trust and confidence. Valladolid, in turn, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Regional Director ordered Valladolid’s reinstatement without backwages, a decision affirmed by the Deputy Minister of Labor. Both parties elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Valladolid was illegally dismissed, and if not, whether the order for his reinstatement without backwages was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied both petitions, upholding the Deputy Minister’s order. On the dismissal, the Court found JRM’s failure to secure prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor fatal. The application for clearance was filed on February 5, 1979, while Valladolid’s last day of work was December 29, 1978. His absence thereafter, though unauthorized, did not constitute a clear abandonment that would justify dismissal without clearance. The law required the application to be filed before the intended dismissal. Since it was filed after Valladolid had stopped working, the dismissal was deemed without a just and authorized cause.
The Court also rejected JRM’s due process claim, noting that summary proceedings requiring position papers before the Regional Director satisfied administrative due process. Furthermore, the requirement for a detailed decision under the Constitution applies to courts of record, not to the quasi-judicial Ministry of Labor operating under summary procedures.
However, the Court agreed that Valladolid’s prolonged, unauthorized absence (AWOL) after his sick leave justified the denial of backwages. While his dismissal was procedurally defective, his conduct mitigated the employer’s liability. Thus, the equitable remedy of reinstatement without backwages was correctly imposed, serving both the employee’s right to security of tenure and the employer’s right to discipline an employee who had breached trust and failed to report for work.