SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 125735. August 26, 1999]
LORLENE A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIFTH DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, and ATENEO DE
DAVAO UNIVERSITY, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
By way of certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court petitioner seeks the nullification of the
Decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, Fifth
Division, which reversed and set aside that of Executive Labor Arbiter Conchita
J. Martinez.
Lorlene Gonzales, petitioner, has
been a schoolteacher in the Elementary Department of private respondent Ateneo
de Davao University (hereafter ATENEO) since 1974 assigned to teach Reading,
Mathematics, Language and Pilipino in the Grade VI class, while ATENEO is an
educational institution, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the
Philippines, with principal address at Jacinto St., Davao City.
Sometime in 1991 Fr. Oscar Millar,
S.J., Ateneo Grade School Headmaster, sent a letter dated 11 April 1991
informing petitioner Lorlene A. Gonzales of the complaints of two (2) parents
for alleged use of corporal punishment on her students. Petitioner claimed that she was not informed
of the identity of the parents who allegedly complained of the corporal punishment
she purportedly inflicted in school-year 1990-1991. She likewise claimed that she was not confronted about it by
private respondent ATENEO in 1991 and that it was only two (2) years after the
complaints were made that she discovered, through her students and their
parents, that ATENEO was soliciting complainants to lodge written complaints
against her.
On 31 March 1993 she wrote a
letter to Fr. Oscar Millar, S.J., demanding that she be formally informed of
the complaint and be duly investigated.
On 9 June 1993 petitioner was
informed of the composition of an investigative committee organized by Fr.
Oscar Millar, S.J., to look into the alleged use of corporal punishment by
petitioner in disciplining her students.
It can be gleaned from the records that she was duly furnished with the
rules of procedure, informed of the schedule of the hearings, and given copies
of the affidavits executed by the students who testified against her.
Petitioner refused to take part in
the investigation unless the rules of procedure laid down by the Committee be
revised, contending that the same were violative of her right to due
process. Petitioner specifically
objected to the provision which stated:
x x x 3) Counsel for Ms. Lorlene
Gonzales shall not directly participate in the investigation but will merely
advise Ms. Gonzales x x x (par. 3).[1]
But the Committee was steadfast in
its resolve to adopt the aforementioned rules.
In its letter dated 9 August 1993, private respondent informed
petitioner that the rules of procedure to be applied were “substantially the
same rules that were used in the investigation of a former Ateneo employee and
therefore we are under legal advice not to change these rules."[2] Over the objection of petitioner the Committee
commenced with its investigation without petitioner’s participation. Out of the twenty -two (22) invitations sent
out by ATENEO to petitioner’s students and their parents to shed light on the
matter of corporal punishment allegedly “administered” by her, eleven (11)
appeared and testified before the committee.
The eleven (11) witnesses also executed written statements denominated
as “affidavits.”
On 10 November 1993 private
respondent served a Notice of Termination on petitioner pursuant to the
findings and recommendation of the Committee.
Thereafter, petitioner received a letter from the president of ATENEO
demanding her voluntary resignation a week from receipt of the letter,
otherwise, she would be considered resigned from the service.
On 29 November 1993 petitioner
filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. After trial, Executive Labor Arbiter
Conchita J. Martinez found her dismissal illegal for lack of factual basis and
ordered ATENEO to award petitioner separation pay, back wages and 13th month pay. In her decision, the Executive Labor Arbiter
opined that although petitioner was afforded procedural due process respondent
institution “failed to establish substantial evidence as to the guilt of the
complainant of the offense charged"[3] thus -
x x x the complainant was afforded procedural due process. There is convincing and sufficient evidence
x x x showing respondent complied with the notice and hearing requirement x x x
x.[4]
After considering the evidence, arguments and counter-arguments of
the parties, this office finds that the respondent failed to establish
substantial evidence as to the guilt of complainant of the offense charged x x
x x.[5]
Complainant has sufficiently established that she is a very good
teacher. She is equipped with the
appropriate educational qualifications, trainings, seminars and work
experiences. Such fact was affirmed by
her present and former students, their parents, colleagues and the former
headmaster of the grade school x x x x[6]
As a matter of fact, six (6) out of the nine (9) students and their
parents/guardians have retracted and withdrawn their statements x x x x[7]
Both parties appealed to the NLRC
which on 25 March 1996 reversed the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter by
declaring petitioner’s dismissal valid and legal but added that since ATENEO
offered petitioner her retirement benefits it was but proper that she be
extended said benefits. Petitioner now
seeks the reversal of the decision; hence, this petition.
The crux of the controversy is
whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining as valid and
legal the dismissal of petitioner by private respondent ATENEO.
The NLRC, in our view, appears to
have skirted several important issues raised by petitioner foremost of which is
the absence of due process. Upon being
notified of her termination, she has the right to demand compliance with the
basic requirements of due process.
Compliance entails the twin requirements of procedural and substantial
due process. Ample opportunity must be
afforded the employee to defend herself either personally and/or with
assistance of a representative; to know the nature of her offense; and, to
cross examine and confront face to face the witnesses against her. Likewise, due process requires that the
decision must be based on established facts and on a sound legal foundation.
It is precisely to demand
compliance with these requirements that petitioner at the very onset of the
investigation demanded the revision of the rules laid down by the Investigative
Committee. The adamant refusal of the
Committee to accede to this demand resulted in her failure to confront and
cross-examine her accusers. This is not
“harping at technicalities” as wrongfully pointed out by the NLRC but a serious
violation of petitioner's statutory and constitutional right to due process
that ultimately vitiated the investigation.
Moreover, the failure of ATENEO to
refute the contention of petitioner that the joint affidavits executed by the
students and parents were "pre-prepared" raises serious doubts as to
the probative value of this evidence.
As correctly pointed out by the Executive Labor Arbiter, “there is more
reason to disregard it especially where the same was challenged and has
remained unexplained.” Hearsay evidence, in the strict sense, has no probative
value whether objected to or not.
In the instant case, ATENEO failed
to prove by substantial evidence that petitioner had inflicted corporal
punishment on her students. In Ang
Tibay v. CIR, the Court set the measure of evidence to be presented in an
administrative investigation when it said, “substantial evidence is more than
mere scintilla. It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
The evidence of private respondent did not measure up to this standard. It relied solely on the witnesses’
affidavits with questionable veracity.
Moreover, the affidavit of recantation executed by some students and
their parents all the more weakened the case of private respondent. Failure in this regard negates the very
existence of the ground for dismissal.
On the other hand, petitioner
adequately proved, by means of affidavits, letters of petition and manifesto
made by her students and co-teachers, that she was a competent and dedicated
teacher having spent seventeen (17) years of her life in the service of the
very institution which is now seeking her dismissal.
In view of the foregoing, the
conclusion of the NLRC is unwarranted.
Employment is not merely a contractual relationship; it has assumed the
nature of property right. It may spell
the difference whether or not a family will have food on their table, roof over
their heads and education for their children.
It is for this reason that the State has taken up measures to protect
employees from unjustified dismissals.
It is also because of this that the right to security of tenure is not
only a statutory right but, more so, a constitutional right.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of public respondent National
Labor Relations Commission dated 25 March 1996 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and
the decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Conchita J. Martinez “declaring the
dismissal of complainant Lorlene A. Gonzales illegal for lack of factual basis
and ordering respondent Ateneo de Davao University to pay complainant
separation pay, back wages and 13th month pay in the total amount of TWO
HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT and 70/100 PESOS (P216,938.70)
x x x [f]urther, ordering respondent to pay 10% of the total monetary award as
attorney's fees to counsel for complainant x x x [d]ismissing all other claims
for lack of merit,” is REINSTATED, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED herein as the decision
in the instant case.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena JJ., concur.