FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 115785. August 4, 2000]
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (4th Division), and RAUL G. DIAMANTE, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case is a
petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order, to nullify the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission[1] dated March 18, 1994, which states:
"WHEREFORE,
the instant appeals are hereby granted. The decision under appeal is hereby set
aside and a new one entered declaring illegal the dismissal of the complainant
appellants Alfonso P. Araneta and Raul G. Diamante and ordering respondent
Philippine Airlines to reinstate them to their former or equivalent positions
without loss of seniority rights, with three (3) years backwages inclusive of
allowances and other benefits.
"All other
claims are hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient basis.
"SO ORDERED.
"Cebu City,
Philippines.
"IRENEA E. CENIZA
"Commissioner"[2]
and the resolution
of May 31, 1994 which provides:
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision in question is hereby SET ASIDE as
regards complainant Alfonso Araneta only, whose appeal is hereby reopened to
give the respondent-appellee the opportunity to answer the same in accordance
with our above discussion. Except for this modification, the rest of the
decision stays.
"SO ORDERED.
"Cebu City,
Philippines.
"IRENEA E. CENIZA
"Presiding Commissioner"[3]
The facts are as
follows:
On June 30, 1975,
Philippine Airlines hired respondent Raul Diamante as Integrated Ticket
Representative for Bacolod City station.
On April 8, 1988,
Edgardo Pineda, Rizalino Cabarloc, Ernesto Subia and Rolando Velasco went to
Bacolod Airport to have their tickets booked for their flight to Manila on
April 9 and 10, 1988. Romeo Vista, a former officemate of Edgardo Pineda, was
their contact person. At the airport, Leticia Vista, wife of Romeo Vista,
introduced Raul Diamante to Edgardo Pineda as the person who could help in the
booking of his ticket. Pineda requested Diamante if he could book their tickets
for the April 8, 1988 flight, particularly Subia, who had to attend an
important meeting in Manila. Diamante answered that all flights for the week
were fully booked. He suggested that he leave with him their tickets. Pineda
gave four (4) tickets to Diamante together with the amount of One Thousand
Pesos (P1,000.00) then Diamante assured them that they will be accommodated.
Subia was booked for the April 8, 1988 flight to Manila while Pineda, Velasco
and Cabarloc were booked for the April 10, 1988 flight. When Subia failed to
take the flight due to illness, Diamante returned Subia's ticket to Vista the
following day since it was Diamante's day off. In order to facilitate Subia's
re-booking, Vista asked for the help of her friend Nelia Cawaling, a neighbor
of PAL Station Agent Rodolfo Puentebella. With the help of Cawaling and
Puentebella, Subia was able to take the April 9, 1988 flight to Manila.
Upon their arrival
in Manila, on June 20, 1988, Pineda executed an affidavit charging Diamante
with bribery/corruption. On July 08, 1988, petitioner's Bacolod Branch Manager
required Diamante to comment on the affidavit. On July 13, 1988, Diamante
submitted his sworn statement denying the allegations against him.
On July 27, 1988,
after evaluation of the complaint and finding the explanation of Diamante
insufficient, petitioner's manager charged Diamante administratively with
bribery/extortion and violation of PAL's Code of Discipline, particularly
Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 thereof, which provides:
"Any employee
who directly or indirectly requests or receives any consideration, share,
percentage or commission for himself or for another person in connection with
the performance of his duties."
Thereafter, petitioner
convened an ad-hoc Committee on Administrative Investigation and
conducted an investigation. On October 3, 1988, at a clarificatory hearing of
the committee Diamante appeared and was investigated with the assistance of his
counsel, Atty. Allan Zamora, and PALEA representative Mario Cornelio. During
the hearing, it was agreed to reset the hearing on October 24, 1988, to give
Diamante a chance to confront Pineda. After several postponements, there was
never a confrontation. No confrontation occurred due to the fact that the
committee unilaterally set the confrontation on November 11, 1988, at
Tuguegarao Airport, Cagayan, despite the previous agreement of the parties and
respondent counsel's request to reset it on November 22, 1988, in Manila. The
Committee, after deliberation, resolved the case on the basis of the evidence
on record.
On December 14,
1988, Diamante received a notice of his dismissal from the service by an office
memorandum, dated November 29, 1988.
On January 17,
1989, Diamante filed with the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional
Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City, a complaint[4] against Philippine Airlines, Inc. for illegal
dismissal, reinstatement with backwages and damages.
On October 28,
1992, Labor Arbiter Merlin Deloria rendered a decision[5] declaring the dismissal legal and valid.
On November 26,
1992, Diamante appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC).
On March 18, 1994,
the NLRC rendered a decision granting Diamante's appeal and setting aside the
Labor Arbiter's decision and ordering the reinstatement of Diamante with three
years back-wages.
On April 8, 1994,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in a
resolution dated May 31, 1994.
Hence, this
petition.[6]
The principal issue
before us is whether respondent was illegally dismissed which would entitle him
to reinstatement with backwages. Petitioner alleges that the National Labor
Relations Commission committed a grave error in ruling that private respondent
was not accorded his full constitutional right to due process of law.
We reiterate the
rule that in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
of Court, this Court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon
which the labor arbiter and the NLRC based their decisions. Our query is
limited to the determination of whether or not public respondent acted without
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the
assailed decisions.[7] When the findings of fact of the NLRC contradict
those of the labor arbiter, this Court must of necessity review the records to
determine which findings should be preferred as more conformable to the
evidentiary facts.[8]
Regarding the
legality of respondent's dismissal, we note that respondent was found to have
violated the Company Code of Discipline. We recognize the right of an employer
to regulate all aspects of employment. This right, aptly called management
prerogative, gives employers the freedom to regulate, according to their discretion
and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment,
working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of
employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal
and recall of workers.[9] In general, management has the prerogative to
discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers
pursuant to company rules and regulations.
With respect to the
procedural aspect of private respondent's dismissal, he was given ample
opportunity to present his side and to defend himself against the charges
against him. He had every opportunity to be heard. Petitioner sent a letter
dated July 8, 1988, to respondent, requiring him to answer the charges against
him. He participated in the investigation conducted by the company and he
appeared with his counsel on October 3, 1988. After investigation, he was
notified of his dismissal. The fact that respondent Diamante was not able to
confront Pineda did not mean that he was deprived of his right to due process.
The essence of due
process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side. A formal or trial type
hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the
requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy.[10]
Since private
respondent's dismissal was for just and valid cause, the order of public respondent
for the reinstatement of private respondent with award of backwages has no
factual and legal basis.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged
decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission are SET
ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated October 28,
1992, is AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] In NLRC Case No. V-0008-93.
[2] Rollo, pp. 29-44, Annex "A" of the
petition.
[3] Rollo, pp. 45-49, Annex "B" of the
petition.
[4] Rollo, pp. 71-76, Annex "D" of the
petition.
[5] Rollo, pp. 50-70, Annex "C" of the
petition.
[6] Petition, filed on June 28, 1994, Rollo, pp.
2-28. On February 28, 1996, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo,
p. 327)
[7] Philippine Airlines vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 126805,
March 16, 2000, citing Industrial Timber Corporation vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA
200 (1997)
[8] Arboleda vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 38, 44 (1999)
[9] Tierra International Construction Corp. vs.
NLRC, 256 SCRA 36, 42 (1996), citing San Miguel Brewery vs. Ople, 170
SCRA 25 (1989)
[10] National Semiconductor Distribution, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 291 SCRA 348, 355 (1998), citing Llora Motors, Inc. vs. Drilon,
179 SCRA 175 (1989)