GR 146621; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146621 ; July 30, 2004
RENE P. VALIAO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION-FOURTH DIVISION (Cebu City), WEST NEGROS COLLEGE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rene Valiao was employed by respondent West Negros College (WNC). His employment was marred by a history of tardiness, absenteeism, and a prior suspension for dishonesty in reporting attendance. On January 28, 1993, petitioner was arrested during a police raid on a suspected drug pusher’s house. He was found in possession of two suspected marijuana roaches and was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. WNC issued a memorandum requiring him to explain why he should not be terminated. He was initially dismissed on January 29, 1993, for failure to answer, but upon his written plea, WNC cancelled the dismissal, placed him under preventive suspension, and constituted an investigation committee. After a hearing attended by petitioner and his counsel, the committee recommended dismissal. WNC terminated him on grounds of serious misconduct and gross and habitual neglect of duty.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s ruling that petitioner was legally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, upholding the legality of the dismissal. The legal logic rests on the twin requirements for a valid dismissal: just cause and procedural due process. First, the Court found just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Petitioner’s arrest for drug possession and the criminal charges constituted serious misconduct, which by its nature reflects on his moral character and renders him unfit to continue employment, especially in an educational institution. His established record of habitual absenteeism and tardiness further constituted gross and habitual neglect of duties.
Second, procedural due process was satisfied. The employer substantially complied with the two-notice rule. Petitioner was given a notice to explain the charges arising from the drug raid. After his initial dismissal was recalled, a formal investigation was conducted where he was represented by counsel and allowed to present his side. A formal trial-type hearing is not essential; due process is met when the employee is given a fair opportunity to be heard. The preventive suspension, however, was unjustified as petitioner posed no serious threat to life or property. Thus, he was correctly awarded salary for the suspension period, but the award of attorney’s fees was deleted as the dismissal was valid.