ROBERTO SEGISMUNDO AND ROGELIO MONTALVO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) AND ASSOCIATED FREIGHT CONSOLIDATORS INC., RESPONDENTS.

Petitioners Roberto Segismundo and Rogelio Montalvo were regular
employees of private respondent Associated Freight Consolidators, Inc., a
corporation engaged in the air freight forwarding business. It picks up parcels and packages from
different parts of the globe and delivers them “door to door” to
their consignees or addressees in the country. Segismundo was a driver whereas Montalvo was a loader/helper. They worked as a team, delivering packages
to their respective addressees or consignees.

Sometime in 1988, private respondent began receiving complaints
from its client/consignees regarding missing items in their packages which were
delivered by private respondent’s personnel. The
number of complaints increased, to the point that some of private respondent’s
delivery arrangements were in danger of being discontinued by disgruntled
clients. This prompted private
respondent to conduct an exhaustive investigation to determine whether its
delivery personnel were involved in the pilferages complained of. The investigation yielded the unfortunate
result that the pilferages could only have taken place while the packages were
in the custody of private respondent’s delivery personnel.

Based on tabulated records, private respondent discovered that of the 27 complaints of pilferages
lodged during the period from August 1988 to February 1989, 6 of the complaints
involved packages delivered by petitioners’ delivery team.

In view of the results of the investigation, private respondent’s
General Manager called a meeting on February 17, 1989 of all delivery personnel to discuss the pilferage incidents. During the meeting, petitioners denied any involvement
therein. They were allowed to inspect
the records gathered in the course of the company investigation. On the same day, petitioners were given
notices by management, placing
them under preventive suspension effective February 18, 1989.

On March 15, 1989, private respondent formally terminated
petitioners’ services without first conducting a hearing.

Consequently, petitioners filed on May 8, 1989 a complaint for
illegal suspension and dismissal, alleging that their dismissal was not based
on a just cause and was effected in violation of their right to due process.

On December 5, 1990, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in
favor of petitioners, ordering their reinstatement with backwages, damages and
attorney’s fees.

Not satisfied with the decision, private respondent appealed, and
on September 30, 1993, the public respondent reversed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter, upholding petitioners’ dismissal as valid.

Hence, this petition.

We uphold the finding of the public respondent that petitioners’
dismissal was for a just cause. The
public respondent’s findings on this score are fully supported by the results
of the investigation conducted by private respondent regarding the pilferages,
and these results were presented before the Labor Arbiter. The conclusion that petitioners were
involved in the pilferages was solidly premised on the tabulated complaints of
consignees, the records of pilfered packages delivered by petitioners’ team and
delivery receipts. No evidence was
presented to show that private respondent was motivated by any ill feeling or
bad faith in dismissing petitioners. On
the contrary, it could have been more difficult for private respondent to
dismiss petitioners considering that petitioner Segismundo was hired upon the
recommendation of respondent’s General Manager himself while petitioner
Montalvo was hired upon the recommendation of a member of private respondent’s
Board of Directors. In view of these
recommendations, petitioners could not have been dismissed unless there was
sufficient cause therefor. It is thus clear that private respondent’s
decision to terminate petitioners’ services was prompted by the necessity to
protect its good name and interests.

Private respondent’s documentary evidence showing the culpability
of petitioners should prevail over petitioners’ uncorroborated explanations and
self-serving denials regarding their involvement in the pilferages. All administrative determinations require
only substantial proof and not clear and convincing evidence (Manalo v. Roldan-­Confesor,
215 SCRA 808). Proof beyond reasonable
doubt of the employee’s misconduct is not required, it being sufficient that
there is some basis for the same or that the employer has reasonable ground to
believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct, and his
participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded
by his position (Riker v. Ople, 155 SCRA 85). Thus, petitioners cannot assert that the public respondent closed its
eyes to their evidence. The latter’s
findings are supported by substantial evidence which goes beyond the minimum
evidentiary support required by law.

However, we find that petitioners were dismissed from employment
without being accorded due process. As
correctly observed by the Solicitor General, non-compliance with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing is fatal because these requirements are conditions
sine qua non before a dismissal may be validly effected
(Manebo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 107721, January 10, 1994, citing Tiu v. NLRC, 215
SCRA 540). Neither of these two
requirements can be dispensed with without running afoul with the due process
requirement of the Constitution
(Century Textile Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 528).

In the instant case, the records show that private respondent
failed to give petitioners the benefit of a hearing. The meeting called by the General Manager on February 17, 1989
does not qualify as the hearing required by law since the same was apparently
for the purpose of merely informing the delivery personnel about the
investigation conducted by the company on the pilferages, and to serve
petitioners and two other employees notices of their preventive suspension. Barely a month later, petitioners were summarily dismissed.

While it may be true that petitioners were allowed to explain
their side during the February 17, 1989 meeting, the fact remains that no
hearing was actually conducted before petitioners’ services were
terminated. The opportunity given to
petitioners during the meeting to answer the charges against them and to verify
the records of the pilferage cases is not the kind of “ample
opportunity” contemplated by law, which connotes every kind of assistance
that management must accord to the employee to enable him to prepare adequately
for his defense including legal representation (Abiera v. NLRC, 215 SCRA
476). In the case at bar, both
petitioners denied any involvement in the pilferages at the February 17, 1989
meeting, and these denials warranted at least a separate hearing to enable
petitioners to fully air their side. Consultations or conferences are not a substitute for the actual
observance of notice and hearing (Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC, 210 SCRA 277).

Moreover, that petitioners simply “kept silent” from
the time they were suspended until they were formally dismissed is not adequate
to constitute a waiver of their rights. Notice and hearing must be accorded by an employer, even though the
employee does not affirmatively demand it (Century, supra.).

Suffice it to say that in this case, private respondent failed to
comply with the requirement that the decision to dismiss an employee must come
only after he is given a reasonable period from receipt of the first notice
within which to answer the charge, an ample opportunity to be heard and to
defend himself with the assistance of a representative if he so desires. Such non-compliance is fatal and constitutes
an infringement of petitioners’ constitutional right to due process. On this score, the public respondent
manifestly erred in holding otherwise.

It appearing that petitioners were dismissed for cause but
without the observance of due process, the ruling in Wenphil Corporation v.
NLRC, 170 SCRA 69, as cited by the Solicitor General in its Comment, squarely
applies to the case at bar:

“The Court holds that the policy of ordering the reinstatement
to the service of an employee without loss of seniority and the payment of his
wages during the period of his separation until his actual reinstatement xxx
when it appears he was not afforded due process, although his dismissal was
found to be for just and authorized cause in an appropriate proceeding in the Ministry
of Labor and Employment, should be re-examined. It will be highly prejudicial to the interests of the employer to
impose on him the services of an employee who has been shown to be guilty of
the charges that warranted his dismissal from employment. Indeed, it will demoralize the rank and file
if the undeserving, if not undesirable, remains in the service.

xxx         xxx xxx

However, the petitioner (employer) must nevertheless be held to
account for failure to extend to private respondent (employee) his right to an
investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed. The dismissal of an employee must
be for just or authorized cause and
after due process. Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a sanction for its
failure to give a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law
before dismissing petitioner from employment. Considering the circumstances of this case, petitioner must indemnify
the private respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of this award depends on the facts of each case and
the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.” (Emphasis
supplied)

Accordingly, the assailed decision of the public respondent NLRC
dated September 30, 1993 reversing and setting aside the decision of the Labor
Arbiter and ordering the dismissal of petitioners’ complaint for illegal
dismissal is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that private respondent
Associated Freight Consolidators, Inc. is hereby ORDERED to pay each of the
petitioners the sum of P1,000.00 as penalty for failing to conduct a hearing
prior to petitioners’ dismissal from employment. This Order is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

Romero, J., no part.