228. CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC. VS.
NLRC
GR No. 77859, May 25, 1988
DOCTRINES:
The rights to be informed beforehand of his proposed dismissal or
suspension as well as the reasons therefor, and to be afforded an adequate
opportunity to defend himself, are rights personal to the employee.
Both reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights, and payment of
backwages are the normal consequences of illegal dismissal.
Reinstatement not available when it will not serve the best interest of the
parties involved.
FACTS:
Respondent Calangi, after having been preventively suspended for 1 month,
was terminated on the ground that he plotted a crime against two of his
supervisors.
According to a witness, Torrena was seen to be mixing some substance with
the drinking water container where the two supervisors regularly drank.
Upon reporting the incident, the contents of the pitcher were subsequently
brought to and analyzed at the Camp Crame Laboratory who found therein
presence of a toxic chemical (formaldehyde). Upon investigation, Torrena
confessed that Calangi instructed him and he agreed. They did this to avenge
their previous suspension from work which was instigated by the 2
supervisors. After which, a criminal charge was instituted against them.
Hence, filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter - dismissed the complaint. NLRC – reversed the decision.
ISSUES:
1) Whether there is illegal dismissal? YES.
2) Considering that respondent was illegally dismissed, whether
reinstatement is proper? NO.
RULING:
Respondent was denied his right to due process in that, prior to his
preventive suspension and the termination of his services, he had not been
given the opportunity either to affirm or refute the charges proffered against
him by the Corporation.
The procedure that an employer wishing to terminate the services of an
employee must follow, is spelled out in the Labor Code:
The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of
due process in cases of employee dismissal; the requirement of notice is
intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer's intent to
dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal; upon the other hand, the
requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his
employer's charges against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom
before dismissal is effected. Neither of these two requirements can be
dispensed with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the
1987 Constitution.
Respondent was never advised of the issue. Neither was there any hearing
held for him to confront his accusers.
It is important to stress that the rights of an employee whose services are
sought to be terminated to be informed beforehand of his proposed dismissal
(or suspension) as well as of the reasons therefor, and to be afforded an
adequate opportunity to defend himself from the charges levelled against
him, are rights personal to the employee.
Notice and opportunity to be heard must be accorded by an employer even
though the employee does not affirmatively demand them.
The burden of showing the existence of a just cause for terminating the
services of private respondent Calangi lay on the petitioners.
Both REINSTATEMENT, without loss of seniority rights, AND payment of
BACKWAGES are the normal consequences of a finding that an employee
has been illegally dismissed, and which remedies together make the
dismissed employee whole.
It matters not that private respondent had omitted in his complaint a claim for
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights for he is entitled to such relief
as the facts alleged and proved warrant.
In view of the finding of illegal dismissal in this case, petitioner Corporation
is liable to private respondent Calangi for payment of the latter's backwages
for three (3) years, without qualification and deduction. Considering the
circumstances of this case, however, the Court believes that reinstatement of
private respondent to his former position — or to any other equivalent
position in the company — will not serve the best interests of the parties
involved. Petitioner Corporation should not be compelled to take back in its
fold an employee who, at least in the minds of his employers, poses a
significant threat to the lives and safety of company workers. Consequently,
we hold that private respondent should be given his separation pay in lieu of
such reinstatement. The amount of separation pay shall be equal to private also recommending their expulsion from ALU. Del Monte, then, terminated
respondent's one-half (1/2) month's salary for every year of service, to be Timbal noting that the termination was upon demand of ALU pursuant to
computed from 13 December 1974 (date of first employment) until 10 June Sections 4 and 5 of Article III of the current Collective Bargaining
1986 (three years after date of illegal dismissal). Agreement.

Timbal filed a complaint against Del Monte and ALU with the NLRC-RAB
229. Del Monte Philippines, Inc. vs. Mariano Saldivar
for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and damages.
G.R. No. 158620. October 11, 2006
ISSUE:
DOCTRINES:
Stipulations in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) authorizing the
Whether there is a sufficient cause for the dismissal of a rank-and-file
dismissal of employees are of equal import as the statutory provisions on
employee through the enforcement of a Collective Bargaining Agreement
dismissal under the Labor Code, since a CBA is the law between the
between the employer and the union.
company and the union and compliance therewith is mandated by the express
policy to give protection to labor.
HELD:
As applied to the dismissals grounded on violations of the Collective
The SC held that even if the dismissal of an employee is conditioned not on
Bargaining Agreement (CBA), observance of substantial due process is
the grounds for termination under the Labor Code, but pursuant to the
indispensable in establishing the presence of the cause or causes for
provisions of a CBA, it still is necessary to observe substantive due process
dismissal as provided for in the CBA.
in order to validate the dismissal. As applied to the Labor Code, adherence
to substantive due process is a requisite for a valid determination that just or
In order that the dismissal of an employee may be validated by the Court, it
authorized causes existed to justify the dismissal. As applied to the
is necessary that the grounds for dismissal are justified by substantial
dismissals grounded on violations of the CBA, observance of substantial due
evidence as duly appreciated by an impartial trier of facts.
process is indispensable in establishing the presence of the cause or causes
for dismissal as provided for in the CBA.
FACTS:
Substantive due process, as it applies to all forms of dismissals, encompasses
The Associated Labor Union (ALU) is the exclusive bargaining agent of
the proper presentation and appreciation of evidence to establish that cause
plantation workers of petitioner Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (Del Monte) in
under law exists for the dismissal of an employee. This holds true even if the
Bukidnon where respondent is an employee and a member of the said union.
dismissal is predicated on particular causes for dismissal established not by
Timbal was charged by ALU for disloyalty to the union, particularly for
the Labor Code, but by the CBA. Further, in order that any CBA-mandated
encouraging defections to a rival union.
dismissal may receive the warrant of the courts and labor tribunals, the
causes for dismissal as provided for in the CBA must satisfy to the
Timbal filed an Answer before the Disloyalty Board, denying the allegations
evidentiary threshold of the NLRC and the courts.
in the complaint and the averments in Artajo’s Affidavit. Nevertheless, the
ALU Disloyalty Board concluded that Timbal was guilty of acts or conduct
It is necessary to emphasize these principles since the immutable truth under
inimical to the interests of ALU. It found that the acts imputed to Timbal
our constitutional and labor laws is that no employee can be dismissed
were partisan activities, prohibited since the “freedom period” had not yet
without cause. The Agabon case may have tempered the procedural due
commenced as of that time. Thus, the Disloyalty Board recommended the
process requirements if just cause for dismissal existed, but in no way did it
expulsion of Timbal from membership in ALU, and likewise her dismissal
eliminate the existence of a legally prescribed cause as a requisite for any
from Del Monte in accordance with the Union Security Clause in the existing
dismissal. The fact that a CBA may provide for additional grounds for
CBA between ALU and Del Monte. The Disloyalty Board also reached the
dismissal other than those established under the Labor Code does not detract
same conclusions as to the co-employees, expressed in separate resolutions
from the necessity to duly establish the existence of such grounds before the
dismissal may be validated. And even if the employer or, in this case, the
collective bargaining agent, is satisfied that cause has been established to
warrant the dismissal, such satisfaction will be of no consequence if, upon
legal challenge, they are unable to establish before the NLRC or the courts
the presence of such causes.
The Court sees the danger to jurisprudence and the rights of workers in
acceding to Del Monte’s position. The dismissal for cause of employees must
be justified by substantial evidence, as appreciated by an impartial trier of
facts.
The Disloyalty Board may have appreciated Piquero’s testimony in its own
finding that Timbal was guilty, yet the said board cannot be considered as a
wholly neutral or dispassionate tribunal since it was constituted by the very
organization that stood as the offended party in the disloyalty charge.
Without impugning the integrity of ALU and the mechanisms it has
employed for the internal discipline of its members, we nonetheless hold that
in order that the dismissal of an employee may be validated by this Court, it
is necessary that the grounds for dismissal are justified by substantial
evidence as duly appreciated by an impartial trier of facts. The existence of
Piquero’s testimony was appreciated only by the Disloyalty Board, but not
by any of the impartial tribunals which heard Timbal’s case. The
appreciation of such testimony by the Disloyalty Board without any similar
affirmation or concurrence by the NLRC-RAB, the NLRC, or the Court of
Appeals, cannot satisfy the substantive due process requirement as a means
of upholding Timbal’s dismissal.
All told, The SC sees no error on the part of the Court of Appeals when it
held that Timbal was illegally dismissed.
Petition is denied.
230. King of Kings Transport Inc vs. Mamac
G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007
DOCTRINES:
Due Process under the Labor Code involves two aspects: first, substantive—
the valid and authorized causes of termination of employment under the
Labor Code, and second, procedural—the manner of dismissal.
In order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation
and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and
circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees—
a general description of the charge will not suffice
A verbal appraisal of the charges against an employee does not comply with
the first notice requirement.
FACTS:
Petitioner KKTI is a corporation engaged in public transportation and
managed by Claire Dela Fuente and Melissa Lim. Respondent was a
conductor for Don Mariano Transit Corporation (DMTC). He was one of the
few people who established Damayan ng mga Manggagawa, Tsuper at
Conductor-Transport Workers Union. Pending the union’s certification
election, respondent was transferred to KKTI. The KKTI employees later
organized the Kaisahan ng mga Kawani sa King of Kings (KKKK) which
was registered with DOLE. Respondent was elected KKKK president.
Upon audit of the October 28, 2001 Conductor’s Report of respondent, KKTI
noted an irregularity. It discovered that respondent declared several sold
tickets as returned tickets causing KKTI to lose an income of eight hundred
and ninety pesos. While no irregularity report was prepared on the October
28, 2001 incident, KKTI nevertheless asked respondent to explain the
discrepancy. In his letter, respondent said that the erroneous declaration in
his October 28, 2001 Trip Report was unintentional. He explained that during
that day’s trip, the windshield of the bus assigned to them was smashed; and
they had to cut short the trip in order to immediately report the matter to the
police. As a result of the incident, he got confused in making the trip report.
On November 26, 2001, respondent received a letter terminating his
employment effective November 29, 2001. The dismissal letter alleged that
the October 28, 2001 irregularity was an act of fraud against the company.
KKTI also cited as basis for respondent’s dismissal the other offenses he
allegedly committed since 1999.
After that, he filed an action for illegal dismissal, among other claims. He
denied committing any infraction and alleged that his dismissal was intended
to bust union activities. Moreover, he claimed that his dismissal was effected
without due process.
KKTI averred that it had observed due process in dismissing respondent and
maintained that respondent was not entitled to his money claims such as
service incentive leave and 13th-month pay because he was paid on
commission or percentage basis.
LABOR ARBITER: he was validly dismissed
NLRC: Affirmed. CA held that there was just cause for respondent’s
dismissal. It ruled that respondent’s act in “declaring sold tickets as returned
tickets x x x constituted fraud or acts of dishonesty justifying his dismissal.”
ISSUE: Whether respondent was given due process (procedural)
HELD: NO. There was failure to observe the requirements of due process
Due process under the Labor Code involves two aspects: first, substantive––
the valid and authorized causes of termination of employment under the
Labor Code; and second, procedural––the manner of dismissal.
Section 2(d) of Rule I of Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code provides:
SEC. 2. Standards of due process; requirements of notice.––In all cases of
termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be
substantially observed:
1. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in
Article 282 of the Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or
grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity
within which to explain his side.
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the
charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against him.
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that
upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been
established to justify his termination.
1. The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain
the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a
directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their
written explanation within a reasonable period. “Reasonable
opportunity” under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of
assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable
them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be
construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of
the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the
accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather
data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against
the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to
intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should
contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will
serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general
description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should
specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or
which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against
the employees.
2. After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and
conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given
the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge
against them; (2) present evidence in support of their defenses; and
(3) rebut the evidence presented against them by the management.
During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the
chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a
representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference
or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to
an amicable settlement.
3. After determining that termination of employment is justified, the
employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination
indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the
employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been
established to justify the severance of their employment.
Respondent was not issued a written notice charging him of committing an
infraction. A verbal appraisal of the charges against an employee does
not comply with the first notice requirement.
The court observed from the irregularity reports against respondent for his
other offenses that such contained merely a general description of the charges
against him. The reports did not even state a company rule or policy that the
employee had allegedly violated.
No hearing was conducted. Regardless of respondent’s written explanation,
a hearing was still necessary in order for him to clarify and present evidence
in support of his defense. Moreover, respondent made the letter merely to
explain the circumstances relating to the irregularity in his October 28, 2001
Conductor’s Trip Report. He was unaware that a dismissal proceeding was
already being effected. Thus, he was surprised to receive the November 26,
2001 termination letter indicating as grounds, not only his October 28, 2001
infraction, but also his previous infractions.