GT PRINTERS AND/OR TRINIDAD G. BARBA, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION) AND EDWIN RICARDO, RESPONDENTS.

The private respondent, Edwin Ricardo, was employed in 1968 as an
apprentice of GT Printers, a single proprietorship owned by Mrs. Trinidad Barba
of East Capitol Site, Cebu City.  Having
gained enough experience and expertise in the printing business and after
undergoing special schooling in Manila at company expense, Ricardo was promoted
to the position of production manager of GT Printers.  In 1978, he became general manager after the
untimely demise of the owner’s husband, who held that position.  Ricardo earned a monthly basic salary of
P1,680, an ECOLA of P485, representation allowance of P1,000 and on top of
these, a three (3%) per cent share in the gross receipts of the business.

In February 1985, Ricardo’s wife established Insta Printers, a
rival printing press, with Edwin Ricardo himself as consultant and owner.  Since the establishment of Insta Printers,
Ricardo became a habitual absentee from his job at GT Printers.  He neglected his duties and responsibilities,
and became lax in directing and supervising the work force, resulting in
numerous major printing errors and failure to meet printing specifications
leading to the rejection of several job orders from regular customers.

Mrs. Barba noticed that Ricardo not only used GT Printers’
bookcloth and other printing materials for his Insta Printers, but he also gave
specific instructions to the production staff to give priority to book and
magazine job orders for Insta Printers. 
Eventually, the regular customers of GT Printers were pirated by Insta
Printers.  Ricardo also manipulated price
quotations during the canvassing of bids to favor his own outfit instead of GT
Printers.

Because of those irregularities, GT Printers suspended Ricardo as
general manager for 30 days.  Effective
June 18, 1986, Richard Barba was designated to take his place.  Contracts concluded by respondent Ricardo
thereafter were no longer honored. 
However, he continued to be a sales agent for GT Printers, hence, he
continued to receive commissions. 
Notices of his investigation scheduled on July 24, 1986 and August 13,
1986 were sent to him but he did not appear at the investigation.  He stopped reporting for work and soon after
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the Regional Arbitration Branch No.
VII of the Department of Labor and Employment in Cebu City, entitled
“Edwin Ricardo vs. GT Printers and/or Trinidad G. Barba.” (NLRC Case
No. RAB-VII-0398-86.)

The case was heard by Labor Arbiter Bonifacio Tumanak who
rendered a decision on January 4, 1990 finding that Ricardo was lawfully
dismissed from employment.  Nevertheless,
the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment to him of separation pay equivalent to
one-half month pay for every year of service (pp. 28-42, Rollo).

Ricardo appealed that decision to the NLRC which on April 18, 1991
(pp. 43-51, Rollo), set aside the labor arbiter’s decision and entered a new
one, finding Ricardo’s dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with
backwages.  However, aware that strained
relations had developed between the parties, the Commission ordered GT Printers
to pay Ricardo backwages for three (3) years and separation pay of one month
for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement.

GT Printers filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied.  Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order. 
On July 29, 1991,
the Court issued a temporary restraining order upon petitioner’s filing a
P100,000 bond enjoining the respondents to desist from enforcing the NLRC
decision during the pendency of this action.

The petition for review is premised on the petitioner’s
contention that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC –

1. in disregarding the labor arbiter’s findings of fact;

2. in finding that Ricardo was denied due process before being
dismissed on July 18, 1986;

3. in finding that Ricardo was dismissed without just cause; and

4. in reversing the decision of the labor arbiter and ordering
Ricardo’s reinstatement with payment of back wages and separation pay.

The petition has merit.

The twin requirements of a valid termination:  due process and just cause – were met
substantially for Ricardo was given ample opportunity to appear at the two
scheduled investigations in order to present his side, but he chose to boycott
the investigation.  Even at the hearing
before the Labor Arbiter, he waived, through counsel, the presentation and
cross-examination of witnesses.

Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but
simply an opportunity or right to be heard (Hian vs. CTA, 59 SCRA 110; Azul vs.
Castro, 133 SCRA 271).  The affidavits,
testimonies and other documentary evidence presented by the petitioner stand
uncontroverted and are therefore entitled to full credit.  It is well-settled that this Court is not a
trier of facts, so we defer to the superior opportunity of the lower courts or
administrative bodies to test the credibility of the witnesses and to examine
the authenticity of the documentary evidence directly before them (Mapa vs.
Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76; Dagupan Bus Co., Inc. vs. NLRC; 191 SCRA 328).

The security of tenure accorded to labor under the Constitution
does not embrace infractions of accepted company rules amounting to breach of
trust and loss of confidence (Rosello, Jr. vs. NLRC, 190 SCRA 779).  The right of an employer to dismiss a
managerial employee for breach of trust and loss of confidence, as in this
case, cannot be doubted.  As a measure of
self-preservation against acts inimical to its interests, an employer has the
right to dismiss an employee found committing acts of dishonesty and
disloyalty.  The employer may not be
compelled to continue to employ such a person whose continuance in the service
would patently be inimical to his employer’s interest (Colgate Palmolive Phils.
Inc. vs. Ople, 163 SCRA 323).  The
dismissal of a dishonest employee is in the best interest not only of
management but also of labor for the law never intended to impose an unjust
situation on either labor or management (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. vs.
NLRC, 172 SCRA 751).

Reinstatement would be ill-advised and incompatible with the
labor arbiter’s finding that “from those documentary evidences presented
by respondent, it can be safely conclude [d] that x x x there exist visible
conflict of interest amounting to willful breach of trust and confidence repose
(sic) upon him by his employer, x x x as well as (b) habitual neglect of his
duties x x x” (pp. 216-217, Rollo). 
The reinstatement of erring managers may not be ordered with the same
ease and liberality as rank and file workers (Pacific Cement Co., Inc. vs.
NLRC, 173 SCRA 192).

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the NLRC is hereby
reversed and set aside.  As the
complainant (herein private respondent), Edwin Ricardo, was lawfully dismissed
for dishonesty and serious misconduct, his complaint for illegal dismissal is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.