G.R. No. 146703 - SUNRISE MANNING AGENCY, INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RUEL ZARASPE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed the complaint. On appeal by private respondent, the NLRC, by Resolution of December 18, 1998, reversed the Labor Arbiters decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which only raised the procedural issue of private respondents failure to serve it a copy of his memorandum of appeal. This motion was denied by Resolution of June 22, 1999. Petitioner thereupon filed on August 17, 1999 a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to vacate the above-mentioned resolutions of the NLRC. By Decision of August 4, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the resolutions of the NLRC. On the procedural issue, the appellate court held that private respondents failure to furnish petitioner a copy of his memorandum of appeal was not a jurisdictional defect that would bar the appeal as to render the Labor Arbiters decision final and executory. On the merits, the same court held that petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proving that private respondent was terminated for a valid cause and in accordance with due process: As already pointed out by the NLRC, petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that private respondent committed the imputed acts. Neither an affidavit nor any piece of company record was submitted before the NLRC. Verily, when there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter as a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for valid and authorized cause. (Valiant Machinery and Metal Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 252 SCRA 369 [1996]) x x x To be validly effected, the dismissal must observe the twin requirements of due process notice and hearing. The employer has the burden of proving that the former has been served with two notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and (2) the other to inform him of his employers decision to dismiss him. x x x In the case before us, the record is bereft of any showing that formal notice of the charge was given to private respondent prior to his dismissal. [2] Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate courts decision was denied by Resolution of January 11, 2001, hence, the present petition. In seeking the reversal of the challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, petitioner argues that the NLRC resolutions are null and void, (1) the Labor Arbiters decision having become final and executory because the reglementary period was not stopped by private respondents appeal owing to his failure to serve a copy of his memorandum of appeal upon petitioner, and (2) they having been rendered in violation of petitioners right to due process as it was not given the opportunity to refute private respondents allegations in his memorandum of appeal. Public and private respondents do not deny that petitioner was not served a copy of p