PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION TOLLWAYS DIVISION, EDUARDO OLAGUER AND CESAR D. TEMPLO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION) A…

The petitioners filed this petition for certiorari to
plead for reversal of the decision dated November 10, 1988 of the National
Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-01858-87, entitled “Arnulfo H. Macasaet vs. PNCC-Tollways Division and/or Eduardo B. Olaguer-President
and Cesar D. Templo, Head-Tollways
Division,” for grave abuse of discretion in holding that the dismissal on
June 25, 1987, of the private respondent, Arnulfo Macasaet, from his position as manager/head of the
petitioner’s Operation and Maintenance of Electronics Equipments and
Communication Systems (OMEECS) of the Tollways
Division, South Luzon Expressway was illegal and in ordering the petitioner
Philippine National Construction Corporation (or PNCC) to pay him backwages and separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement, plus attorney’s fees.  The dispositive
part of the NLRC’s decision reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is partially AFFIRMED
with respect to the findings of the Labor Arbiter that
complainant was deprived of due process in the manner of his dismissal from the
service and hereby declare that respondent was guilty of illegal
dismissal of complainant.  The award for
separation benefits in favor of complainant is also upheld in lieu of the
latter’s reinstatement, with the modification by ordering and directing
respondents to pay complainant separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay
based on his latest salary for every year of service to respondent company, and
to pay complainant backwages effective June 15, 1987
up to the date of the promulgation of this judgment.  Respondent is further assessed payment of
attorney’s fees fixed at five (5%) percent of the money award.

“The portion of the assailed decision
finding the dismissal of complainant to be for a lawful cause is hereby Vacated and Set Aside.

“All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of factual
basis.

“With costs against respondents.”
(p. 146, Rollo.)

The Labor Arbiter found that Macasaet
was dismissed without due process
because he was placed under preventive suspension
upon service to him of the notice dated May
25, 1987 charging him with serious misconduct and dishonesty, and
terminating his services effective June
25, 1987, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself in an appropriate investigation.  He also found that “respondents failed
to establish the charge of
overstocking,” (p. 101, Rollo) but, based on the
affidavit of another employee, Jose Baltazar, the
Labor Arbiter opined that PNCC had reason to dismiss Macasaet
for misconduct when the company’s radio licenses were not renewed despite the
cash advance of P5,460 that Macasaet obtained for
that purpose.

On appeal by PNCC, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s finding
that there was lawful cause for Macasaet’s
dismissal.  The NLRC noted that “in
ruling on the alleged misconduct of herein complainant (Macasaet),
the Labor Arbiter greatly relied on the sworn statement of Jose Baltazar, the subordinate supervisor of complainant,
which the Arbiter admitted and considered without affording herein complainant
the opportunity to refute or offer any rebuttal evidence.” The NLRC
observed that “this Act of the Arbiter amounted to grave abuse of
discretion and denial of herein complainant of his right to procedural due
process (Baguio Country Club vs. NLRC, 118 SCRA 557, 562.)” (p.
144, Rollo.) The NLRC ruled that since the
manner of dismissing the employee was “oppressive and contrary to
law,” (p. 143, Rollo) the dismissal was illegal
“even if the employer may have had some justifiable grounds to dismiss the
employee.” (Ibid.) It
relied on the decisions of this Court in AHS/Philippines Employees Union (FFW)
vs. NLRC, 149 SCRA 5; Reme???? Garments Mfg. vs.
Minister of Labor, 135 SCRA 167; De Leon vs. NLRC, 100 SCRA 961; and Century
Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Pati, G.R. No.
77859, May 25, 1988,
where We ruled that –

“The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute
essential elements of due process in cases
of employee dismissal; the requirement of notice is intended to inform the
employee concerned of the employer’s intent to dismiss and the reason for the
proposed dismissal; upon the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords an
employee an opportunity to answer his employer’s charges against him and
accordingly to defend himself therefrom before
dismissal is effected.  Neither of these
two requirements can be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process
requirement of the 1987 Constitution.” (Century Textile
Mills, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al.,
G.R. No. 77859, May 25, 1988.)

“Right to dismiss should not be confused with the manner in which such right is exercised.  It must not be oppressive and abusive since
it affects one’s person and property.” (Bonifacio de Leon vs. NLRC, et al., 100 SCRA 691.)

The NLRC presumably considered Macasaet’s
arguments in his appeal memorandum (which the petitioner did not refute)
showing that he was not to blame for the non-payment of the license fees on or
before the deadline on November 30,
1986.  Jose Baltazar, to whom the P5,460 was given by Macasaet, failed to pay the license fees because, as
admitted in PNCC’s position paper, Baltazar was advised by Engr. Cuenca of the National Telecommunications Commission (or
NTC) to apply for the extension of the licenses, which he did.  That PNCC had to pay P19,634.02 (instead of
P5,460) was not due to any penalty charges (falsely alleged by PNCC) but due to
the fact (shown by its own receipts) that: 
(1) NTC charged P1,050 for the change of name of the corporation from
“CDCP” to “PNCC”; (2) increased the inspection fee from
P1,265 to P6,194.51; and (3)
charged P12,389.51 for the extension of the license to cover the period of June
5, 1985 up to November 30, 1987 (p. 117, Rollo).

The real reason for his dismissal, according to Macasaet, was Olaguer’s desire to
overhaul the corporation as soon as he was
installed as its new president after the EDSA revolution.  To make matters worse, Olaguer
was piqued when Macasaet and his immediate superior,
Andres Sebastian, then Vice-President of the Tollways
Division (until he was shortly
replaced by petitioner Cesar Templo), were lukewarm toward Olaguer’s
proposal to purchase new toll collection equipment and integrate expensive
weighing scales in the tollways.  They suggested that the viability of those
proposed “improvements” and their impact on the fiscal condition of
the company be studied first.  It turned
out that Olaguer had already contacted a foreign
supplier of the equipment, GCH International, which sent representatives to the
meeting of the PNCC technical committee.

Olaguer was further infuriated when his
interrogation of Macasaet failed to yield any damning
evidence of wrongdoing against Sebastian. 
He called Macasaet names and demanded that he
resign.  When Macasaet
did not comply, he was summarily dismissed.

The NLRC was convinced that the charge of dishonesty against Macasaet was not proven. 
It observed that “there appears to be some doubt on the alleged
misconduct of complainant.  There is no
showing that he misappropriated the funds in his possession.  Secondly, his only fault, if at all, is
simple negligence that would not justify the harsh penalty of dismissal.” (p. 145, Rollo.)

Mindful, however, of the strained relations between the parties,
the NLRC granted Macasaet separation pay of one month
for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement, plus backwages
from the time of his dismissal on June 25, 1987 up to the date of its decision,
November 10, 1988.  Its decision is not
tainted with grave abuse of discretion for it finds support in the decision of
this Court in Asiaworld Publishing House,
Inc. vs. Ople, G.R. No. 56398, July 23, 1987, 152
SCRA 219, where severance pay was awarded to the illegally dismissed employee
in lieu of reinstatement.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed
with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.