Villaram vs NLRC
September 2, 1994
GR No 106341
Puno, J.
SUMMARY: P was employed as Materials Manager by Golden Donuts. He
was charged with sexual harassment by Gonzaga, a clerk typist. She was
invited to a dinner. When P offered to bring her home, he instead drove his
car to a motel. Gonzaga then resigned from work. P initially agreed to be
separated from the company but later changed his mind. He was claiming
that his error was not enough to justify such termination. Since he failed to
submit his resignation letter, he was terminated. He filed an illegal dismissal
case. LA ruled that due process was not observed and that there was no
valid ground. NLRC reversed. SC ruled that P shouldve filed for a MFR
instead of a certiorari. But the Court still ruled on the substantive issues. (1)
Ps right to due process was violated since he was not given an opportunity
to be heard. (2) Loss of trust and confidence was a valid ground to dismiss
him. As managerial EE, P is bound by a more exacting work ethics. He failed
to live up to this higher standard of responsibility. When such moral
perversity is perpetrated against his subordinate, he provides justifiable
ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. SC ruled that P was
not entitled to separation pay, moral and exemplary damages but was
entitled to his unused vacation/sick leave and proportionate 13 th month pay.
FACTS:
P was employed by PR Golden Donuts as Materials Manager
P was charged with sexual harassment by Divina Gonzaga, a clerk-
typist assigned in his department. This led her to resign from work
after her 5 months stay in the company
o Story: She, along with all the girls in her department, were
invited for dinner. They went to a restaurant where they ate
and had a few drinks. They decided to bring her home but
Mr. Villarama, instead of bringing her home, drove the car to
a motel
The president of the company called the P to a meeting and was
asked to explain. P later agreed to tender his resignation. His LOA
with pay was approved by the company. Company then issued a
memo advising all concerned that P was no longer connected.
P was asked to submit his resignation letter. However, P had a
change of mind. He asked reconsideration of the managements
decision to terminate him. He was claiming that
o his significant contribution of the materials department for 21
months outweighs the error that he had committed and that
o an error must not be a basis for a drastic decision.
Since P failed to submit his resignation letter, he was dismissed
P filed an illegal dismissal case
LA held that due process was not observed because there was no
valid cause. LA ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and backwages, moral damages, exemplary damages and
attys fees
NLRC reversed LA. Dismissal was valid
ISSUES
(1) WON Ps right to procedural due process was violated YES because
he was not given an opportunity to be heard
(2) WON he was dismissed for a valid or just cause YES. Loss of trust
and confidence is a good ground for dismissing a managerial EE
HELD:
Procedural issue: Must have filed for a motion for reconsideration
instead of a certiorari. However, the court still ruled on the substantive
issue
(1) SC ruled that the petition was not accompanied by a certified true
copy of the NLRC Resolution which violated the Revised Circular No.
1-88
(2) There was no certification under oath that P has not commenced any
other action involving the same issues in the SC, CA or other tribunal
and that to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding
is pending as required by Circular No. 28-91
(3) Non-compliance would result in the outright dismissal of the petition
(4) Revised ROC 64 provides that certiorari is available in cases where
the tribunal, board or offices has acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction or with GAD and there is no appeal, nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy
a. Proper remedy was a Motion For Reconsideration not
certiorari
Substantive Issues
(1) SC ruled that terminating an EE is found in LC 227(b) which provides that
EEs are protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause
and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under LC 283 (ER shall
furnish EE a written notice containing a statement of the causes and shall
be given ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his counsel.
Such procedure protects both R&F and managerial EEs. Both have a right to
security of tenure as provided in Art 13 Sec 3 of the Consti. In this case, P
decided to ask reconsideration of his termination. He felt that the gravity of
 his error did not justify his dismissal. P should have been formally charged
and given an opportunity to refute the charges.
(2) P claims that his alleged immoral act was unsubstantiated hence he could
not be dismissed
SC holds otherwise. Records show that P was confronted with the charge
against him. He initially voluntarily agreed to be separated and took a LOA. P
in his letter admitted his error. As a manager, P should know the evidentiary
value of his admissions. Hence, he cannot complain that there was no valid
cause of his separation.
SC ruled that loss of trust and confidence is a good ground for dismissing a
managerial EE. The standard of evidence used in this case is substantial
evidence. SolGen observed that even if De Jesus and Gonzaga were
sweethearts and that she acceded to De Jesus to drop them in the motel, P
still acted in collusion with the immoral designs of De Jesus and did not give
due regard to Gonzagas feelings, thereby justifying PRs finding of sexual
harassment. P failed to act accordingly as a good father of the family
because he was not able to maintain his moral ascendancy over the group.
He also actively facilitated the commission of immoral conduct of his
subordinates by driving his car into the motel.
As managerial EE, P is bound by a more exacting work ethics. He failed to
live up to this higher standard of responsibility. When such moral perversity is
perpetrated against his subordinate, he provides justifiable ground for his
dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. It is the duty of every ER to protect
his EEs from over sexed superiors.
ERs are given wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of
managerial EEs on the ground of lack of trust and confidence.
Re monetary awards
(1) Not entitled to separation pay since it is only proper in cases
enumerated under LC 283 and 284 and in cases where there is
illegal dismissal and reinstatement is no longer feasible. But ER can
still be penalized for failure to give formal notice and conduct the
necessary investigation before dismissing an EE
(2) Not entitled to moral and exemplary damages since there was no BF
or malice on the part of PR in terminating him
(3) Entitled to his unused vacation/sick leave and proportionate 13 th
month pay. These are earned by P and should be unaffected by his
separation