Ariel M. Reyes vs. Rural Bank of San Rafael (Bulacan) Inc., Florante Veneracion, Celerina Sabariaga, Alica Flor Kabiling, Fidela Manago, Ceferino De Guzman, and Rizalino Quintos,
G.R. No. 230597, March 23, 2022
Facts:
1. Sometime in 2012, several stockholders of RBSR complained about the discrepancies in the amounts of the purchase price of stock subscriptions.
2. Acting on this anomaly, RBSR conducted an investigation and confirmed the irregularities.
3. Thus, in compliance with the Manual of Regulations for Banks mandating the prompt report of anomalies to the BSP, RBSR's Board of Directors approved a Report on Crimes and Losses and directed Reyes - as Compliance Officer - to certify the same. However, Reyes refused to certify the report, reasoning that no independent investigation was conducted, and that he cannot completely validate the same for lack of material data and evidence, and that he was being pressured to certify the report.
4. Thereafter, RBSR issued him two show cause orders and put him on preventive suspension for neglect of duty. On March 25, 2013, Reyes, together with Bognot and Eusebio (complainants) - who were principally accused of theft/misappropriation of funds in connection with the anomaly - filed a Complaint against respondents for illegal suspension and money claims. An Amended Complaint was subsequently filed to include illegal dismissal, in view of their eventual dismissal from work.
5. Labor Arbiter found RBSR guilty of illegally dismissing Reyes, Bognot, and Eusebio. The arbiter's ruling was mainly based on RBSR's failure to file its Position Paper and submit its evidence during the proceedings, which constrained the arbiter to rule on the matter based solely on the complainants' evidence.
6. The NLRC reversed the arbiter's ruling.
Issues:
· Whether or not respondents were denied of their right to due process when LA decided in petitioner’s favor
· Whether or not respondents are entitled to be accorded a liberal interpretation of the rules
· Whether or not there is illegal dismissal
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
No. Due process has been described as a "malleable concept anchored on fairness and equity." Indeed, at its core is simply the reasonable oppo1iunity for every party to be heard.
Applying this principle, a review of the records will reveal that during the proceedings before the arbiter, respondents have been accorded ample opportunity to present their side. It appears that respondents have unjustifiably missed at least two settings: that on June 4, 2013, and that on June 19, 2013. To stress, respondents missed the hearing on June 19, 2013 despite having been directed prior by the arbiter to attend. Moreover, it must be noted that respondents, at this point in time, have already obtained a copy of the amended complaint which would have enabled them to intelligently respond.
While it may be true that the arbiter failed to issue summons, such circumstance cannot operate as a denial of respondents' right to due process because the fact remains that respondents have already obtained a copy of the amended complaint, and have been duly notified of the June 19, 2013 hearing.
The issuance of summons is done in order to apprise the respondent of the case filed and as a means to furnish them a copy of the complaint so they can intelligently respond. Given the circumstances in the present case, the issuance of the summons would have been a mere superfluity since again, respondents have already obtained a copy of the amended complaint and notified of the upcoming hearing date.
To add, respondents' absence during the June 4, 2013 hearing is likewise unexplained.
SECOND ISSUE
No. The Supreme Court held that respondents in the present case are not entitled to be accorded a liberal interpretation of the rules; the same being primarily granted for the employee's favor, and not the employer.
The measures embedded in our legal system which accord specific protection to labor stems from the reality that normally, the laborer stands on unequal footing as opposed to an employer. Indeed, the labor force is a special class that is constitutionally protected because of the inequality between capital and labor.
In the common scenario of an unaided worker, who does not possess the necessary knowledge to protect his rights, pitted against his employer in a labor proceeding, the Court cannot expect the former to be perfectly compliant at all times with every single twist and turn of legal technicality. The same, however, cannot be said for the latter, who more often than not, has the capacity to hire the services of a counsel. As an additional aid therefore, a liberal interpretation of the technical rules of procedure may be allowed if only to further bridge the gap between an employee and an employer.
THIRD ISSUE
Yes. In dismissing Reyes, the records bare that RBSR sent him the following: first, a document with the subject "Show Cause Order and Preventive Suspension" dated March 22, 2013.
Based on this document, it would appear that Reyes was being charged with either willful disobedience or insubordination, or gross and habitual neglect of duty, both of which are just causes for termination of employment under the Labor Code.
Second, a document with the subject "Administrative Case" dated April 4, 2013 which notified Reyes of a hearing scheduled on April 10, 2013.
Third, a document with the subject "Show Cause Order" dated April 19, 2013.
Interestingly, based on this show cause order, it would appear that the charges against Reyes changed from either disobedience or neglect, to commission of a crime or offense.
Lastly, Reyes was issued a "Notice of Termination" dated April 26, 2013.
While it is true that Reyes was given sufficient opportunity to explain his side during the investigation, the Court cannot help but notice the muddled and vague charges against him. Specifically, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty on what grounds the charges pressed against Reyes were based on, and which ones were proven. While it would appear that Reyes was initially charged with insubordination or neglect of duty, the show cause order surprisingly accused him of participation in the alleged theft/misappropriation, and neither is there any showing that the same has been established nor is it specifically mentioned as the reason for his dismissal. Instead, the termination letter sent to Reyes, which is a mirror copy of the ones sent to Bognot and Eusebio, merely employed general and loose statements. Neither is there any mention of which specific rule or policy Reyes allegedly violated. Surely, this is not the kind of notice contemplated by the Labor Code and its implementing rules.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment