CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS v. HEIRS OF ZUELO APOSTOL (Labor Law Review)

G.R. No. 215314, March 14, 2018

CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS AND ANTONIO STEVEN L. CHAN,Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF ZUELO APOSTOL, Respondents.

FACTS:

The respondent Zuelo Apostol, now deceased and represented herein by his heirs, commenced his 20 years of employment with petitioner Central Azucarera de Bais (CAB).

Tomasito A. Rosel (Rosel), one of CAB's security guards, discovered that the respondent "was using his company house, as well as other company equipment to repair privately owned vehicles."

CAB management, issue a memorandum addressed to the respondent for violating Rule 9 of CAB's Rules of Discipline.

Respondent submitted a handwritten explanation asking for apologies however respondent received a copy of the termination letter.

The respondent filed a Complaint before the Sub-Regional Arbitration against the petitioners for constructive dismissal, illegal suspension, unfair labor practice etc but dismissed for lack of merit.

Respondent appealed the Labor Arbiter decision to the NLRC, which, after proper consideration, reversed the same. The NLRC ruled that: (1) the respondent should have been given the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself through a hearing; (2) the respondent did not commit serious misconduct because his "contrite and remorseful explanation belies any willfulness and wrongful intent to violate the rules;"and (3) while the respondent did indeed violate the company rules, the ultimate penalty of dismissal should not have been meted out to him.

From the NLRC's reversal of the Labor Arbiter's decision, the petitioners elevated the case to the CA, which later on denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision. The CA averred that, while CAB was compliant with the twin notice requirement, the respondent's violation "cannot be considered as so grave as to be characterized either as serious misconduct or could lead to a loss of trust and confidence."

ISSUES:

(1) whether or not procedural and substantive due process was observed in the termination of the respondent's employment with CAB; (2) whether or not the penalty meted out was commensurate to the violation; and consequently, (3) whether or not the respondent is entitled to the payment of backwages and separation pay.

RULING:

(1) Yes, the petitioners furnished the respondent with two notices: one, the memorandum which informed the respondent of the charges against him; and two, the letter of termination which, this time, notified the respondent of CAB's decision to dismiss him. In the interim, CAB, through the memorandum issued by its resident manager, sought the respondent's explanation on the incident.

The confluence of these facts, in the Court's opinion, sufficiently complies with the respondent's right to be accorded ample opportunity to be heard.

(2) Yes, Article 297(c) [formerly Article 282(c)] of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the services of an employee for fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in him.

(3) No, having thus ruled on the validity of the dismissal of the respondent, then it necessarily follows that he is not entitled to both backwages and separation pay.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 06906, dated May 22, 2013 and the subsequent Resolution dated October 29, 2014, as well as the Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. V-000451-2002, dated October 28, 2011 and February 27, 2012 respectively, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated May 30, 2002 in SUB-RAB- VII-02-003 9-2002-D is hereby REINSTATED.