SECOND
DIVISION
WILFREDO
T. PADILLA,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 114764
June 13, 1997
-versus-
THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and SAN BEDA COLLEGE,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J.:
This petition
for certiorari seeks to set aside
the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] in
NLRC-NCR
Case No. 10-03520-84, which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter,
and its resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The factual
antecedents in this case are not disputed.cralaw:red
Petitioner was a
faculty member of the College
of Arts and Sciences of San Beda College [SBC] from June 1980 up to his
dismissal.cralaw:red
Sometime in
November 1983, petitioner approached
co-professor Leopoldo Martinez in behalf of his alleged "nephew," a
student
by the name of Luis Santos, whom Martinez failed in History I.
Petitioner
apparently disagreed with the grading system of Professor Martinez and
urged the latter to change the grade of Santos. On November 10, 1983,
an
urgent meeting was called to deliberate on Santos' case. However, prior
to said meeting, petitioner initiated a "whispering campaign" among the
faculty members and students who failed in the same subject against
Martinez,
the obvious purpose of which was to exert pressure and influence on the
latter regarding the proposed changing of the grades.cralaw:red
Petitioner
admittedly approached the members of
the Dean's Council[1]
to lobby for the reconsideration of Santos' failing grade.[2]
In several instances, he also acknowledged that Santos was not actually
his nephew but he said so only to add weight to his request. On ground
of serious misconduct, petitioner's services were terminated on July
23,
1984. In a complaint for illegal dismissal against SBC, Labor Arbiter
Isabel
T. Ortiguerra rendered a decision dated October 10, 1991, the
dispositive
portion of which reads thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment
is
hereby
rendered declaring the respondent guilty of illegal dismissal and
ordering
it to reinstate the complainant to his former position of full time
professor
without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages computed from
the time he was dismissed up to the time he will actually be reinstated
but not to exceed 3 years.
The claim for moral and exemplary damages
are
dismissed for lack of merit.
This decision
was, however, reversed on appeal by
the NLRC in its decision dated July 26, 1993. His motion for
reconsideration
having been denied on February 23, 1994, petitioner filed the instant
petition
for certiorari.
The petition must
be dismissed.cralaw:red
This Court is
convinced that the pressure and
influence exerted by the petitioner on his colleague to change a
failing
grade to a passing one, as well as his misrepresentation that Santos is
his nephew, constitute serious misconduct, which is a valid ground for
dismissing an employee.[3]
Petitioner
asserts that he facilitated the request
of Santos because he believed it was meritorious and that he did it in
his capacity as teaching evaluator.cralaw:red
We are not
persuaded. As aptly observed by the
NLRC, it became petitioner's personal crusade to help Santos, which he
did not exhibit with the other students who failed. It further stated,
"(a) teacher evaluator can, at best, advise a student as to how he can
finish his course but certainly not to act as his lobbyist."[4]
With respect to
the issue of whether petitioner
was afforded due process, we rule in the affirmative.
Before an employee can be validly
dismissed,
the employee must be afforded due process and his dismissal must be for
any of the causes specified in Article 282 of the Labor Code.[5] Labor Arbiter Ortiguerra
mentioned in her decision[6]
that SBC failed to afford petitioner an impartial investigation,
imputing
to Father Odilardo Arceo, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, an
"obvious predisposition" to dismiss him. This was, however, refuted by
Fr. Arceo who declared in his sworn statement that he merely
recommended
the termination of petitioner's employment to the Fr. Rector of SBC
who,
after an official investigation, adopted his recommendation.cralaw:red
Petitioner was
indeed duly notified of the charges
levelled against him. The records show that on June 7, 1984, he was
officially
informed that SBC was considering his dismissal on charges of serious
misconduct,
an investigation of which was scheduled on June 28, 1984. A
postponement
was requested and the hearing was moved to July 5, 1984. While the
hearing
was being conducted at the Fr. Rector's office, petitioner suddenly
walked
out just as Professor Martinez was about to commence giving his
testimony.cralaw:red
The essence of
due process in administrative proceedings
is the opportunity to explain one's side or a chance to seek
reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of.[7]
Thus, the Labor Code requires the employer to furnish the employee with
a written notice containing a statement of the cause for termination
and
to afford said employee ample opportunity to be heard and to depend
himself
with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. The
employer
is also required to notify the worker in writing of the decision to
dismiss
him, stating clearly the reasons therefore.[8]
In the instant case, SBC amply complied with the abovementioned
requisites.cralaw:red
Petitioner also
alleges that he was denied due
process, as well as the thirty-day prior written notice when he was
dismissed.
He even cited in his memorandum the case of RCPI v. NLRC[9]
to support his contentions. The aforementioned case, however, does not
mention any thirty-day period. Petitioner erred in relying on the
procedural
requirement outlined in Article 283 of the Labor Code which applies
only
when termination of the employment is due to the installation of labor
saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the
closing
or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, the petition
is DISMISSED and the July 26, 1993 decision of respondent National
Labor
Relations Commission is AFFIRMED. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno and Mendoza,
JJ., concur.
Regalado and Torres, Jr., JJ., took
no
part.cralaw:red
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Fr. Odilardo Arceo, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Don
Clement
Ma. Roque, Area Chairman for Social Sciences and Dr. Teresita Pedrajas,
Assistant Head, College Guidance Office.
[2]
Rollo, p. 47.
[3]
Article 282 [a], Labor Code, as amended.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 52-53.
[5]
Comsavings Bank v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G. R.
No.
98456, June 14, 1996.
[6]
Rollo, p. 39.
[7]
Pizza Hut v. National Labor Relations Commission, 252 SCRA 531 [1996].
[8]
Mirano, et al. v. NLRC, G. R. No. 121112, March 19, 1997.
[9]
223 SCRA 656 [1993]. |