ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 144583. October 4, 2000]
VAN MELLE PHILS., INC., et al. vs. VIRGINIA E. SY, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 4 2000.
G.R. No. 144583 (Van Melle Phils., Inc., Victor M. Endaya and Barbie L. Atienza vs. Virginia E. Sy, Benjamin A. Del Mundo, Jr. and Aurora G. Chavenia.)
Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission declaring thusly:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the NLRC dated February 28, 1997 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Another one is entered ordering private respondents to reinstate petitioners to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages from the time petitioners were dismissed up to actual reinstatement.
Private respondents, are employees of petitioner Van Melle Philippines, Inc., holding various positions in the accounting and sales department.
The core of the present controversy is a letter which private respondent sent to the vice president for operations of Van Melle N.V. Holland which stated:
August 1994
PETER L.M. VERDULT
Sir:
In line with our commitment to cooperate with Management towards a brighter future for Van Melle (Phils.), Inc., WE the office, sales and warehouse/delivery personnel humbly request your intervention in the management of the affairs of the company if only to safeguard its assets from going down the drain.
Specifically, we request our mother company in Holland to send its competent auditors and conduct a detailed and objective audit of the company's books of account, with focus on expenses pertaining to security and representation expenses with the military during the recent strike at the Calamba plant and up to the present. We have an inkling that certain top management officials are taking advantage of the situation by bloating certain expenses for personal gain, and if audit will be conducted by local auditors, chances for cover-up or window-dressing are likely to happen to the detriment of the company.
Van Melle has been a part of our lives and aspirations. Its downfall is our downfall; its progress our progress. Through thick and thin, in all strife, we have been doing our level best to live-up to the company's expectations. Through the years, we have considered ourselves as members of a big Van Melle family with mutual trust and respect for each other. We are, therefore, as much concerned as you are if assets are not safeguarded and employees discontented or demoralized.
We will be most grateful for your approval of our request.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINA E. SY
BENJAMIN DEL MUNDO
AURORA CHAVENIA
In response to the above letter, the mother company sent an auditor to investigate. But the investigation yielded no evidence that any member of the management team misappropriated expenses or diverted funds or assets of the company for personal gain.
As a consequence, on December 13, 1994, private respondents received a letter from petitioner Barbie Atienza stating thusly:
x x x
These ill founded accusations are no more than a malicious and libelous attempt to besmirch and malign the reputation and character of VMPI's top management team and to cast doubt on the integrity not only of those you accused but even the entire organization itself.
x x x.
In the light of these facts, your actuations were unbecoming, improper, immoral and illegal. As such, the company has lost its trust and confidence in you and that your continued presence in the organization poses a threat to our organization and is gravely detrimental to VMPI.
In view thereof, you are hereby instructed to submit within 24 hours (on or before Thursday, December 15, morning) upon receipt hereof, a written explanation why you should not be terminated for cause on the ground of loss of trust and confidence and committing act of libel and slander.
Also in line with these proceedings, you are also summoned to attend a hearing on Thursday, December 15, at 3:00 p.m. at the Legend Hotel. You may opt to be assisted/represented by counsel or union representative during this meeting.
Failure to comply with this advice will be interpreted as a lack of interest to pursue your case and/or admission of guilt. In such event, the Company shall effect the appropriate administrative penalty without prejudice to further proceedings in the regular courts.
x x x.
Instead of a written explanation, private respondents asked for a postponement of the hearing scheduled on December 15, 1994, explaining that the lawyer they hired to represent them was not available.
However, on December 16, 1994, private respondents received two letters, one, telling them that their request for postponement was denied and the other, informing them of their termination from work on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.
Aggrieved, private respondents filed an action for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.
The labor arbiter dismissed the case.
The appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration before the NLRC having failed, private respondents elevated the case to this Court which referred the case to the Court of Appeals in line with the ruling in the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, et al.
The Court of Appeals, finding the absence of just cause and due process in the dismissal of private respondents, reversed the decision of the NLRC.
Thus, the instant petition which we find to be unavailing.
To validly dismiss one from employment, two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the employee must be afforded due process; and (2) the dismissal must be for a valid and just cause (Lagatic vs. NLRC, 285 SCRA 251 [1998]).
Corollarily, the twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process, and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul with the constitutional guaranty (Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, 284 SCRA 656 [1998]). This is explicitly provided in Article 277(b) of the Labor Code which requires that the employer furnish the employee a written notice containing a statement of the cause of termination and that the employee be afforded ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if so desired.
In the case at bar, private respondents were given notice to explain but the requirement of hearing was not met. Private respondents, instead of submitting a written explanation to answer the charges leveled against them by petitioners, opted to secure the services of a counsel. However, the counsel was not available on the scheduled date of hearing so they requested for a postponement. Apparently, petitioners rejected said request, proceeded with the "hearing" sans private respondents, and came out with a decision to terminate them from their employment.
Anent the existence of just cause for termination, it is to be noted that private respondents were dismissed for loss of confidence and trust for allegedly maligning the character and reputation of the local managers because of the subject letter sent to the mother company. A perusal of the letter sent by respondents to the mother company shows that it was private, confidential, and addressed to the Vice president for Finance of the mother company. The line of communication was confined to the addressee and the writers. There is no showing from the record of this case that said letter was leaked to and known by the other employees. This indicates that private respondents had no slanderous intention to malign or besmirch the reputation of the local managers.
Moreover, under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, loss of confidence would be the result of fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed on him by his employer or duly authorized representative. Thus, the breach of trust must be related to the performance of the employees' functions (Quezon Electric Cooperative vs. NLRC, 172 SCRA 88).
In the case at hand, the alleged loss of trust and confidence was not by reason of or in connection with the performance of their functions. If at all, private respondents' letter was reflective of their legitimate concern for their employer.
WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
