HI CEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ULYSSES C. CUARTE, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Hi Cement Corporation (Hi Cement, for short) seeks by
this petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the resolution dated
June 8, 1989 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC, for short) in
connection with NLRC-NCR Case No. 6-4237-82 entitled, “Ulysses C. Cuarte
vs. Hi Cement Corporation,” affirming with modification the Labor
Arbiter’s decision dated August 2, 1984, which ordered Hi Cement to reinstate
the complainant, now respondent, Ulysses C. Cuarte (Cuarte, for short) with
backwages.

On July 25, 1981, Dr. Cuarte was hired by Hi Cement as Company
Physician with a basic salary of P2,387 per month and total monthly allowance
of P1,502.82 as of the date of the termination of his services on May 19, 1982.

On April 17, 1982, a strike was declared by the labor union at
the Hi Cement plant in Norzagaray, Bulacan. Because a picketline had formed at the gate of the plant, Dr. Cuarte, on
April 20, 1982, sent a note (Exhibit D) to his assistant nurse to bring out his
diagnostic kit, surgical instruments and PIMS from the company premises.

Engineer Oscar P. Tecson, the overall-in-charge of administrative
matters in the Hi Cement plant for the duration of the strike, saw the note but
he refused to give Cuarte’s medical instruments to him. He construed Cuarte’s request as loss of
interest in working for the company. In
a letter dated April 23, 1982 (Exh. E), Engr. Tecson directed Dr. Cuarte to
submit a letter of resignation within 72 hours.

On April 28, 1982, Dr. Cuarte was able to retrieve his medical
bag when he was allowed to enter the company premises, escorted by the
company’s security guards.

On May 5, 1982, a return-to-work order was issued by the Ministry
of Labor, Engr. Jose B. Yuson, Hi Cement’s Assistant Vice President for
Administration, terminated Dr. Cuarte’s employment effective May 16, 1982
(Exhibit E).

On June 8, 1982, Dr. Cuarte filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against Hi Cement.

In a decision dated August 2, 1984, Labor Arbiter Manuel B.
Lorenzo held that Dr. Cuarte was denied due process, hence, his dismissal was
illegal. The Labor Arbiter
ordered: (1) Dr. Cuarte’s reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights; (2) payment to him of full backwages from the
effective date of his termination on May 16, 1982, up to the date of his actual
reinstatement; and (3) payment of P7,100.00 as attorney’s fees plus
costs.

Hi Cement appealed to the NLRC.

On August 19, 1988, the Second Division of the NLRC dismissed the
appeal for being late. Hi Cement moved
for a reconsideration of the resolution.

In a decision dated June 8, 1989, the NLRC reinstated the appeal,
but, after a review of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, it affirmed the same
“with the modification that the amount of backwages is limited to one (1)
year without qualification and deduction based on his last salary” (p. 31,
Rollo).

On August 18, 1989, Cuarte filed a Motion for Execution.

Hi Cement filed a petition for certiorari in this Court
contending that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the
decision of the Labor Arbiter because:

“A. The law does not require an employer to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the ground upon which to terminate the services
of its managerial employee for loss of trust and confidence;

“B.    The reinstatement of private respondent and
the award of ‘backwages’ in his favor are contrary to the facts and evidence on
record, the law and settled jurisprudence on the matter;

“C.    There is absolutely no factual or legal
basis for the award of attorney’s fees favor of private respondent.” (p. 8,
Rollo.)

Hi Cement alleged that Dr. Cuarte’s refusal to comply with its
lawful order to render medical services to his co-employees trapped inside the
Company premises during the strike constituted gross insubordination causing
the company to lose its trust and confidence in him and justifying the
termination of his employment.

The petition has no merit. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly found that there was no basis
for Hi Cement’s alleged loss of confidence in Dr. Cuarte. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his
comments on the petition:

“x x x Petitioner’s allegation of insubordination on the part
of the private respondent is based on the latter’s alleged refusal to report
for work after having been ordered to do so by Engr. Oscar P. Tecson,
overall-in-charge of administrative matters during their telephone conversation
on April 20, 1982. But this alleged
telephone instruction is belied by Engr. Oscar P. Tecson’s own letter to the
private respondent 3 days later (Exhibit ‘E’) which does not make any reference
to any previous telephone conversation as hereunder quoted in full:

“‘This has reference to your handwritten note dated 21 April
1982, we received at the Guesthouse thru the Detachment Commander.

‘It appears that you are no longer interested to work with the
company anymore.

‘In view of your failure to report and perform your duties and
responsibilities as such, during this time of extreme emergency, you are hereby
requested to file your resignation within seventy-two hours from receipt hereof,
to give us enough time to look for your replacement in order to safeguard the
health and medical needs/ requirements of our present personnel at plantsite
[sic].

‘Failure on your part to act accordingly within the period given shall
constrain us, much to our regret, to terminate your services, for cause.

“As Engr. Tecson admits in the very first paragraph of his
letter, his ‘request’ to private respondent to file his resignation was
prompted solely by the latter’s handwritten note dated ‘April 21, 1982’. (Note Exhibit ‘D’ actually bears the date
’20 April 1982′). It is strange that
the letter would fail to mention the private respondent’s alleged refusal to
comply with order to report for work allegedly given by Engr. Tecson himself
over the phone on April 20, 1982 or 3 days before said letter. Since the letter would have clearly proved
private respondent’s insubordination, which is by itself a strong ground for
dismissal and or basis for loss of trust and confidence, Engr. Tecson would not
have failed to mention private respondent’s failure to respond to such
order. This only proves that no such
order was given by Engr. Tecson on April 20, 1982. Hence, there could not be any insubordination.

“The same is true with petitioner’s claim that on April 20,
1982, the private respondent offered to resign. An offer of resignation on the part of private respondent would
have simplified matters for the petitioner. All it had to do was request confirmation of the private respondent’s intention
to resign and then accept it. The April
23, 1982 letter is completely silent about any previous offer to resign.

“Petitioner also claims that private respondent refused to
obey the order of Engr. Jose Yuson, Assistant Vice-President for Operations
given on April 23, 1982, to report for work and that the private respondent
reiterated his offer to resign. This
allegation suffers the same flaws just discussed. Engr. Yuson’s letter of termination dated May 19, 1982 on the
attributed petitioner’s loss of trust and confidence on private respondent’s
failure to report for work during the period of the strike and his attempt to
retrieve his medical kit (first paragraph). There is no reference by Engr. Yuson to any insubordination by the
private respondent with respect to his alleged April 23 letter.

“The fact that the April 23, 1982 letter relied solely on
private respondent’s letter requesting the release of his medical kit belies
the allegations that there was insubordination or an offer to resign.

“The letter of   termination
does not also mention private respondent’s alleged offer to resign. If true, there is no better proof of private
respondent’s lack of desire to work for the petitioner than his offer to
resign. Why both Engr. Tecson and Engr.
Yuson avoided reference to the same cannot be reasonably explained. The allegations of insubordination and offer
to resign were merely fabrications to justify the dismissal.” (pp.
116-119, Rollo.)

On the issue of due process, it is undisputed that Dr. Cuarte was
not formally charged nor investigated before he was dismissed. No hearing was conducted as required by the
rules. No charges were formally
preferred against him nor was he given a chance to defend himself. He was simply and summarily served a notice
of termination unmindful of his right to due process and security of tenure.

We ruled in “Board of Directors, PNB vs. CA,” 2 SCRA
561 – “(m)ere interrogations or inquiries conducted primarily for the
purpose of eliciting facts or information, cannot take the place of an
investigation and due hearing, wherein the x x x erring employee is given the
opportunity to defend himself against certain specified charges.”

Since there was no valid termination of his service, Dr. Cuarte
is entitled to be reinstated without loss of his seniority rights and with
backwages which the NLRC limited to a period of one (1) year and which Dr.
Cuarte, signifying his conformity with the award, sought to be executed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The questioned NLRC resolution
is affirmed in toto. Costs against the
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.