G.R. Nos. L-76724-6 August 31, 1988
UNITRAN/BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC., ABELARDO CONCEL, Branch Manager, ULTRAN/VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., petitioner, vs. JOSE OLVIS, ENGRACIO RELOS, BIENVENIDO RELOS, BENONIE ESPIRITU, ROMEO MENESES, FRISCO LOPEZ AND PASTOR CANGREJO, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Unitran/Bachelor Express, Inc. and Ultran/Vallacar Transit, Inc., terminated the employment of private respondents Engracio Relos, Pastor Cangrejo, Bienvenido Relos, Benonie Espiritu, and Romeo Meneses on December 2, 1982. The petitioners alleged that the dismissals were for a just cause, specifically dishonesty, loss of confidence, and connivance in the misappropriation of company funds. The private respondents, who worked as bus inspectors on the Davao City-Mati route, received their notices of dismissal on December 1, 1982, and the termination was implemented immediately the following day.
The dismissed employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, ordering the payment of separation pay equivalent to one month for every year of service, as reinstatement was deemed no longer feasible. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision on appeal. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed a reversible error in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision that declared the dismissal of the private respondents illegal and awarded them separation pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The ruling was grounded on the petitioners’ failure to satisfy both the substantive and procedural requirements for a valid dismissal under the governing law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, and its implementing rules.
On the substantive aspect, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the petitioners’ evidence failed to constitute concrete and competent proof of the alleged misappropriation of funds. The petitioners’ claim of dishonesty and loss of confidence was found to be unsubstantiated. Following the settled doctrine, the Court held that in the absence of any showing that these factual findings were unsupported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive and binding.
On the procedural aspect, the Court found that the petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory due process requirements. The implementing rules required the employer to afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself after receiving a notice of dismissal. The record showed that the private respondents received their notices on December 1, 1982, and were dismissed the very next day without being given a reasonable period to answer the charges or to be heard in their defense. This constituted a denial of statutory due process.
While the right to dismiss is a management prerogative, it must be exercised without abuse of discretion, considering the employee’s fundamental right to security of tenure and livelihood. Since the dismissal was not for a just or authorized cause and was effected without due process, it was illegal. With reinstatement rendered impossible as the positions had been filled, the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was proper. The NLRC, therefore, committed no error.