G.R. No. 116473 - WILFREDO R. CAMUA, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND HERBERT S. DEE JR./HOOVEN PHILS. INC.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on October 26, 1989, Edgardo S. Crisostomo recommended petitioners dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. The recommendation was approved on October 27, 1989 by respondent Herbert S. Dee, Jr., but implementation of the order was put off because the company allegedly wanted to catch petitioner in flagrante delicto. However, the respondent company was frustrated in its attempt because petitioner allegedly learned about the plan. On November 30, 1989, petitioner was finally dismissed. On January 23, 1990, petitioner filed this case for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of 13th month pay against private respondents. Respondent company paid petitioner Camuas 13th month pay on February 28, 1990. leaving as the sole issue petitioners dismissal . In a decision dated January 21, 1994 Labor Arbiter Melquiades Sol D. Del Rosario found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed. On appeal, however, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters decision. Hence, this petition for certiorari. First. Petitioner contends that he was dismissed without due process of law. The law requires that before an employee may be dismissed two notices must be given to him by the employer, to wit: (1) notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omission for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) notice informing the employee of the decision to dismiss him and the ground or grounds therefor. [1] In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that no written notice of the charges had been given to petitioner by the respondent company. With respect to the second notice required, private respondents claim that, on November 30, 1989, petitioner was informed of his dismissal by means of a written memorandum but petitioner refused to receive the notice. Private respondents could have sent such notice, however, by registered mail in order to have evidence of such notice to petitioner, but they did not do so. There is thus no evidence to show that respondent company gave petitioner the required two notices before he was dismissed. Accordingly, in accordance with the well-settled rule, [2] private respondents should pay petitioner P1,000 as indemnity for violation of his right to due process. Second. Private respondents contend that petitioner was guilty of gross negligence and possibly of fraud against the company. Therefore, they claim that petitioner was dismissed for just cause. In their reply filed in the NLRC they said Camua was an incompetent employee and worse, may even be dishonest and that Camuas incompetence was probably a mere facade to hide his felonious acts. [3] But the NLRC found petitioner guilty not of gross negligence but for dishonesty for having allegedly certified aluminum sections to be defective when the fact is that they were not products of the company. This is erroneous because the only evidence that respondent company had to support its allegation that petitioner was colluding with some customers to de