|
PHILIPPINE Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 168876
Present: |
|
- versus - SERVANDO L. EDPAN, |
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, |
|
Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-x |
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ. |
|
SERVANDO L. EDPAN, Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 172093
|
|
- versus - PHILIPPINE |
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
February
10, 2009 |
x- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
These consolidated petitions before us highlight conflicting
decisions promulgated by two divisions of the Court of Appeals concerning the
requirements of procedural due process in the termination by the school
management of its employee, a high school teacher.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 168876 assail
the Decision[1]
dated October 25, 2004 and Resolution[2]
dated July 13, 2005 by the Special 17th Division of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80757 which affirmed with modification the Decision[3]
dated
Edpan as petitioner in G.R. No. 172093, in turn, assails the
Decision[4] dated P10,000.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Servando Edpan was a high school teacher at Philippine Pasay
Chung Hua Academy (PPCHA) where AAA,[6] a minor-aged
student, was enrolled.
On
On
In compliance with the two letters from the school
directress, Edpan submitted a letter[10] vehemently
denying the allegations against him. In
a follow-up letter[11] dated
PPCHA, by letter[12] dated
On
On
On
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the instant
complaint for lack of merit. Respondent school is however directed to pay
complainant his unpaid salaries for services rendered during the summer class
and his proportionate 13th month pay.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Edpan appealed to the NLRC, which modified the Decision of
the Labor Arbiter, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision appealed from is
hereby MODIFIED by directing respondents to indemnify complainant the amount of
ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) for failure to strictly comply with due
process prior to termination.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Edpan and PPCHA filed their respective motions for
reconsideration of the NLRC Decision but both were denied. The parties thereafter filed separate special
civil actions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
In CA-G.R. SP No. 80757, the appellate court ruled that PPCHA
did not observe procedural due process when it dismissed Edpan. It decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated
SO ORDERED.[19]
In contrast, the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 80779
found that procedural due process was complied with. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The assailed Decision is MODIFIED, the award of P10,000.00
as indemnity is hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED.[20]
Both Edpan and PPCHA are now before this Court assailing the
decisions rendered by the appellate court.
In G.R. No. 168876, PPCHA and co-petitioner allege that in CA-G.R. SP
No. 80757, the Court of Appeals
I.
…BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE LAW
AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT UPHELD THE SERRANO DOCTRINE IN ITS
RESOLUTION DATED
II.
…UTTERLY IGNORED PREVAILING
JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DIRECTED PETITIONERS TO PAY RESPONDENT BACK WAGES.
III.
…DISREGARDED THE LAW AND
ESTABLISHED FACTS ATTENDANT IN THE INSTANT CASE WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT
PETITIONERS DID NOT APPEAL THE NLRC RULING.
IV.
…BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE LAW
AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DID NOT FIND THAT PETITIONERS COMPLIED
WITH DUE PROCESS IN DISMISSING RESPONDENT.[21]
In G.R. No. 172093,
petitioner Edpan avers that in CA-G.R. SP No. 80779, the Court of Appeals
COMMITTED GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT PHILIPPINE
Simply stated, the basic issue
is: Did PPCHA observe procedural due
process when it dismissed Edpan?
On
one hand, PPCHA contends that it has complied with the two-notice requirement
when it dismissed Edpan. It argues that
the following are undeniable from the case records: (1) PPCHA served Edpan a written notice
informing him of the complaint against him and another notice requiring him to
submit a written explanation; (2) PPCHA conducted an investigation; and (3)
PPCHA served a written notice to Edpan informing him of his dismissal.[23]
On
the other hand, Edpan claims that PPCHA failed to observe procedural process
since no hearing was conducted when his case was under investigation. He
stresses that the law specifically mandates that there should be a hearing or
conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel,
if he so desires, is given the opportunity to respond to the charge, and
present evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.[24]
After serious consideration of this case, we are in agreement
to rule in favor of PPCHA, the employer.
In the dismissal of employees, it has
been consistently held that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are
essential elements of due process.
Article 277 (b)[25] of the Labor Code
and Section 2,[26]
Rule XXIII, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code require the
employer to furnish the employee with two written notices, to wit: (1) a written notice served on the employee
specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee
reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; and (2) a written notice
of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of
all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his
termination.[27] The first notice which may be considered as
the proper charge, serves to apprise the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought.
The second notice on the other hand seeks to inform the employee of the
employer’s decision to dismiss him.[28] With regard to the requirement of a hearing,
it should be stressed that the essence of due process lies simply in an
opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and
indispensably be held.[29]
In this case, the employer – PPCHA – appears to
have complied with the due process requirements set forth in the law and
already established in jurisprudence.
PPCHA through its school directress sent Edpan a letter informing him of
the complaint filed by the parents of AAA and requiring him to submit a written
explanation within 24 hours. He then
submitted his written explanation denying the allegations against him. He was later furnished copies of AAA’s Sinumpaang
Salaysay and the parents’ letter-complaint and was again required to submit
his reply thereto. Edpan was able to
submit his reply-affidavit and even attached to it letters of PPCHA students
and alumni attesting to his integrity.
It was only after giving Edpan opportunities to present his side, that
PPCHA furnished him a notice dismissing him from its service.
Thus,
we rule that PPCHA observed procedural due process before Edpan was dismissed. Even if no hearing or conference was
conducted, the requirement of due process had been met since he was accorded a
chance to explain his side of the controversy.[30]
WHEREFORE, the Decision
dated P10,000 as indemnity was
properly deleted.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1]
Rollo (G.R. No. 168876), pp.
30-35. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim
S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and
Magdangal M. De
[2]
[3] CA rollo, pp. 12-17.
[4] Rollo (G.R. No. 172093), pp. 25-30-A. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.
[5]
[6] This
appellation is pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, Sec. 44, otherwise known as
the “Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004” and our ruling
in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA
419, wherein this Court has resolved to withhold the real name of the victim-survivor
and to use fictitious initials instead to represent her in its decisions. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the
victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise
their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household
members, shall not be disclosed.
[7] CA rollo, p. 29.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Rollo (G.R. No. 168876), p. 35.
[20] Rollo (G.R. No. 172093), p. 30.
[21] Rollo (G.R. No. 168876), pp. 17-18.
[22] Rollo (G.R. No.172093), p. 17.
[23] Rollo (G.R. No. 168876), pp. 21-22.
[24] Rollo (G.R. No. 172093), p. 18.
[25] ART.
277. Miscellaneous provisions. − … (b) Subject to the constitutional
right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against
dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the
requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall
furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice
containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the
latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance
of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and
regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor
and Employment….
[26] Section 2. Standards of due process: requirements of notice. – In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:
x x x x
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;
x x x x
(c) A written notice termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstance, grounds have been established to justify his termination.
x x x x
[27] Pastor
[28]
[29]
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v.
Barrientos, G.R. No. 157028,
[30] Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Nepthally B.
Sallao and Asian Terminals, Inc. (Mariveles) Workers’ Union, G.R. No.
166211,