Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

CIVIL PROCEDURE opportunity to be heard or explain her side when she

was required to submit an explanation; and (c)


serving a written notice of termination after verifying
the infraction committed.
ALUAG v BIR MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVE There is a different approach in reviewing the CA’s
G.R. No. 228449 | 6 December 2017 decision in a labor case. In a Rule 45 review which is
Subtopic: S. Post-judgment remedies; 2. limited to questions of law, the Court examines the
correctness of the CA's Decision in contrast with the
Appeals; f. Review of judgments or final orders review of jurisdictional errors under Rule 65 which is
of quasi-judicial agencies resorted to determine the presence or absence of
grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision.
DOCTRINE: Rule 65 may be resorted to
determine whether the NLRC has gravely Moreover, in labor case, grave abuse may be
imputed to the NLRC when its findings and
abused its discretion in rendering a decision
conclusions are not supported by substantial
that is not based on substantial evidence. evidence.

FACTS: The SC found agrees with the NLRC that the cashier
 Petitioner Aluag was hired by Respondent as failed to regularly report Post-Dated Checks (PDC)
cashier since 1994 until she was terminated received and did not observe proper monitoring of
checks due to be deposited. There are checks which
on 2013. Her job includes receiving
were not deposited at all.
remittances and payments deposit all
collections and perform other duties as the It also held that procedural due process is met even
general manager (GM) may assign to her. without an actual hearing as long as the employee is
 She alleged that she was tasked to give accorded a chance to explain her side of the
verbal reports on Respondent until she was controversy, as what happened here.
required to put them in writing.
 She alleged that her task to make verbal
reports was later on required to be in
writing, and so when the Respondent’s loan
processor accepted post-dated checks with
prior approval of the GM, she submitted a
report of bounced checks and deposited the
remaining checks in her possession.
 Thereafter she was preventively suspended
before she gave birth. Then she filed a
complaint in the NLRC alleging that she was
illegally suspended, but later changed it to
illegal dismissed.
 The Respondent averred that Aluag was
dismissed for loss of trust and confidence
due to her violations of the BIRMPC’s by-
laws, rules and regulations. It added that
the external auditor reported that the
cashier failed to regularly report post-dated
checks and did not observe monitoring.
 The LA dismissed the complaint for illegal
dismissal, but the NLRC ruled otherwise. The
CA reversed, and reinstated the LA ruling. It
held that the BIRMPC observed the 2-notice
rule.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly reversed and


set aside the NLRC ruling, and accordingly held that
BIRMPC had just cause to terminate Aluag's
employment.

RULING: Yes. The SC found that BIRMPC sufficiently


observed the standards of procedural process in
dismissing Aluag by (a) issuing a written notice
specifying her infractions; (b) granting her ample

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi