G.R. No. 117059 - PIZZA HUT/PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER SALIMATHAR NAMBI AND FROILAN RUEDA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents PIZZA HUT/ PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION to pay the complainant the following: 1. Backwages for three (3) years, thus: P3,300.00 x 36 mos. = P118,800.00; 2. Separation pay at one (1) month salary for every year of service in the total amount of P24,75 0.00; 3. Ten percent (10%) of the total award for and as Attorneys fees." [3] This Decision was affirmed by the NLRC on April 29, 1994. [4] The NLRC also denied the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in its Order dated June 29, 1994. [5] The present petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the aforementioned Decisions and Order rendered by the public respondents. It raises the following grounds: "Public Respondent Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in rendering the decision in favor of Private Respondent Rueda in spite of the overwhelming evidence against the latter. Respondent NLRC likewise committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the dismissal of the appeal and in denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by your petitioner. The capricious and arbitrary rulings of Public Respondents without evidence in support thereof and even contrary to the evidence adduced during trial place the Petitioner in jeopardy and at the same time expose it to irreparable damage and injury." [6] The basic issue to be resolved in the case at bar is the legality of private respondents dismissal. For an employees dismissal to be valid, two requisites must be met: (1) the employee must be afforded due process, meaning, he must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself, and (2) the dismissal must be for a valid cause as indicated in Article 282 of the Labor Code. [7] First, on due process. Petitioner assails the ruling that private respondent was not afforded an opportunity to be heard before he was dismissed from work. The ruling of Labor Arbiter sustained by the respondent NLRC held: ". . . Respondents contend that complainant was afforded due process as evidenced by the minutes of the investigation (Exhs. 4 to 4-c) wherein he was able to give his side on his defense. Complainant, however, denied that no such investigation was conducted by the respondents. An examination of the said minutes of investigation (Exhs. 4 to 4-c) reveals that the same was not signed by the complainant. Without complainants signature on the said minutes, it cannot be concluded that the same is authentic and (not) merely fabricated to suit respondents defense. Indeed, respondents failed to present any notice or letter to complainant affording him the opportunity to present evidence in refutation of the charge against him. This Office has no other option therefore, but to conclude that complainants right to due process was not duly observed by the respondents . . ." [8] The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opp