G.R. No. 183196 - CHONA ESTACIO AND LEOPOLDO MANLICLIC, VS. PAMPANGA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AND LOLIANO E. ALLAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Board is not vested with the authority to hire and fire nor rehire employees. The General Manager is the only authorized official for this matter, while the Board has to formulate policies nor guidelines only for the GM to implement. This office carefully reviewed the facts surrounding the issues raised by the concerned parties, and we found that due process was undertaken after rendering the decision by the General Manager on this matter, and should be enforced. This is healthy move of eradicating dishonesty and inefficiency among the employees. Thus, the disapproval of the above resolutions. Thank you. Very truly yours, (SGD)ALBERTO A. GUIANG [22] NEA through Regional Director Alberto A. Guiang issued another letter to the Board of Directors of respondent PELCO I dated 10 December 2002 stating that it was disapproving Resolution No. 39 issued by the Board of Directors of respondent PELCO I granting the letter of appeal of petitioners. [23] The foregoing events prompted petitioners to file with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Board (RAB)-III, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, their Complaints [24] against respondents for illegal dismissal and payment of backwages, 13 th month pay, and other benefits. The Complaints were docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-03-5517-03. In a Decision dated 30 April 2004, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, for the following reasons: Respondents under their onus were required to show that [herein petitioners] were dismissed for cause. As to [petitioner] Chona Estacio respondents contended that she was guilty of gross negligence of duty under sec. 6.6.6. of its Employee's Code of Discipline (Board Policy 01-04). Respondents have shown that [petitioner] Estacio failed to carry out her duties and responsibilities as a bill custodian per the latter's job description more particularly no. 2 and no. 3 of her detailed duties, namely: "2. Maintains an accurate record of all Official Electric Bill Receipts (OERB) issued to and returned by collectors, and sees to it that the same are properly signed or initialed by the collector as clearance to any accountability; "3. Accounts and ascertains on a daily basis the total bills collected and uncollected by collectors and those bills paid in the office by consumers through the maintenance of bill route control and related record" (Annex "1" of respondents' Reply). It was likewise shown that this infraction carries the penalty of dismissal. Record also showed that the requirements of procedural due process was afforded the [petitioner] before she was finally separated. In the case of [petitioner] Manliclic, respondents were able to show with the admission of the former that sec. 2, subsection 2.1, pars. 2.1.2 to 2.1.4 of Board Policy No. 01-04 were violated by [petitioner]. The same violations carry the penalty of dismissal. The procedural requirements of notice and hearing were likewise afforded [petitioner] Manliclic before he was finally terminated. In v