RUBEN ALBIS, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND CAMARINES SUR I ELECTRIC COOP, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Albis versus National Labor Relations Commission and Camarines Sur I Electric Cooperative

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Ruben Albis against the National Labor Relations Commission and Camarines Sur I Electric Cooperative, which the Court also calls CASURECO I. Albis asks the Supreme Court to reverse the labor tribunal that upheld his dismissal from service. He had worked for the cooperative for almost twenty five years, rising from casual employee to lineman, and he was dismissed for dishonesty after he installed electric connections for three consumers without the cooperative's authority, using defective, tampered, or retired meters. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules every labor lawyer must know: the substantial evidence standard in dismissal cases, the true meaning of due process in labor proceedings, and the principle that long service aggravates rather than mitigates the offense of a disloyal employee.

Procedural History

Albis filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for damages, reinstatement, backwages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that substantial evidence supported the charge and that the cooperative had complied with due process. Albis appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter and held that the illegal connections alone, being admitted, justified the dismissal. Albis then went up to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The petition was initially dismissed because he had not first filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Court reinstated it upon his motion, considering that he had served the cooperative for almost twenty five years, and resolved the case on the merits.

Facts

Ruben Albis began work with CASURECO I on July 31, 1986 as a casual employee and was regularized on January 25, 1989. He rose from the ranks and, since 1996, held the position of lineman under the Field Operation Department.

On April 19, 2011, the cooperative issued him a Notice of Violation charging dishonesty on three counts: installing illegal connections and tampered or defective meters, and soliciting or receiving money from three consumers, Conelia Lurcha, Josephine Vergara, and Paul Antonio, without remitting the amounts to the cooperative. Albis received the notice, submitted a written explanation, and attended the investigation held the same day. His supervisor, Roberto Ruy, who conducted the investigation, found him guilty of violating the cooperative's Manual of Discipline and Code of Ethics, particularly the provision on honesty and integrity, and recommended disciplinary action. The General Manager then issued a Notice of Disciplinary Action dismissing him from service. Albis refused to receive the notice.

Albis sought reconsideration before the cooperative's Board of Directors, which allowed him to speak. He admitted the acts but explained that the consumers had insisted and that he was in financial trouble. The Board took no action for lack of authority over disciplinary matters. His letter of appeal was denied. In that appeal he attached affidavits of Antonio and Vergara retracting their earlier statements, but the Court later found that these retractions actually confirmed that the consumers had approached him and paid him the cost of the materials. Hence the complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in upholding the dismissal of Albis for dishonesty despite his claim that the charge was not supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether or not Albis was denied due process because he was never given the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him.
• Whether or not his long years of service should mitigate the penalty of dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it applies the settled doctrine on due process in labor cases, which the Court states through its ruling in PLDT versus the Late Romeo Bolso:

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all circumstances essential.

This governs the second issue, because Albis was heard through his written explanation, the investigation, and the Board meeting, so the absence of a confrontation with witnesses did not amount to a denial of due process.

On the effect of length of service, the Court adopts this rule:

The Court has held that the longer an employee stays in the service of the company, the greater is his responsibility for knowledge and compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of discipline in the company. An employee's length of service with the company even aggravates his offense.

This governs the third issue, because Albis's long tenure, far from excusing him, made his violation of the cooperative's rules more serious.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the dismissal. As a lineman, Albis had no business making electrical connections without the knowledge and approval of the cooperative. The investigation reports showed that all three meters were defective, tampered with, intended for another consumer, or retired, and that each consumer paid him an amount ranging from seven thousand to twelve thousand pesos. More importantly, Albis admitted the violations from the start, in his reply to the notice, during the investigation, and before the Board. The Court held that whether he received consideration, and whether the cooperative suffered loss, were mere consequences of his wrongdoing. His claim of compassion was, in the Court's words, not compassion but an unfair practice against the cooperative and against consumers who followed the legitimate process.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no denial of due process. The essence of due process is an opportunity to explain one's side, not a full blown trial type hearing. Albis was heard through his reply letters, the investigation, and the Board meeting, and his submission of the retraction affidavits was, by analogy, a confrontation of the witnesses.

On the third issue, the Court refused to mitigate the penalty. It quoted its own teaching that social justice ceases to be an effective instrument for the equalization of social and economic forces when it is used to shield wrongdoing.

Doctrine

• In illegal dismissal cases, the employer's burden is substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission are accorded respect when supported by it.
• The essence of due process in labor proceedings is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side; a formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all circumstances essential.
• An employee's length of service aggravates, rather than mitigates, the offense, because the longer an employee stays in the service, the greater is his responsibility for knowledge of and compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of discipline of the company.
• Social justice is not a shield for wrongdoing, and the employee's interest cannot be upheld in disregard of the employer's right to dismiss and discipline.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission upholding the dismissal of Ruben Albis was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that long service aggravates the offense, and that due process in labor cases means only an opportunity to explain one's side. Examiners use this case to test the substantial evidence standard, the meaning of due process in administrative and labor proceedings, and the rule that social justice cannot shield a dishonest employee.