Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 721 views

    Wenphil Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    The petitioner dismissed the private respondent after an altercation with a co-employee without conducting an investigation as required by law. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the private respondent's complaint for lack of merit, but the NLRC reversed and ordered reinstatement finding a lack of due process. The Court ruled that while the petitioner failed to investigate, the private respondent was afforded due process at the Labor Arbiter but failed to avail it, and was found to have committed misconduct. As such, dismissal was justified but petitioner was ordered to indemnify the private respondent for failing to follow proper procedure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Wenphil Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    721 views1 page
    The petitioner dismissed the private respondent after an altercation with a co-employee without conducting an investigation as required by law. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the private respondent's complaint for lack of merit, but the NLRC reversed and ordered reinstatement finding a lack of due process. The Court ruled that while the petitioner failed to investigate, the private respondent was afforded due process at the Labor Arbiter but failed to avail it, and was found to have committed misconduct. As such, dismissal was justified but petitioner was ordered to indemnify the private respondent for failing to follow proper procedure.

    Original Description:

    Labor Standards

    Original Title

    Wenphil vs Nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner dismissed the private respondent after an altercation with a co-employee without conducting an investigation as required by law. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the private respondent's complaint for lack of merit, but the NLRC reversed and ordered reinstatement finding a lack of due process. The Court ruled that while the petitioner failed to investigate, the private respondent was afforded due process at the Labor Arbiter but failed to avail it, and was found to have committed misconduct. As such, dismissal was justified but petitioner was ordered to indemnify the private respondent for failing to follow proper procedure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    721 views1 page

    Wenphil Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    The petitioner dismissed the private respondent after an altercation with a co-employee without conducting an investigation as required by law. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the private respondent's complaint for lack of merit, but the NLRC reversed and ordered reinstatement finding a lack of due process. The Court ruled that while the petitioner failed to investigate, the private respondent was afforded due process at the Labor Arbiter but failed to avail it, and was found to have committed misconduct. As such, dismissal was justified but petitioner was ordered to indemnify the private respondent for failing to follow proper procedure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    80587 February 8, 1989

    WENPHIL CORPORATION, vs. NLRC AND ROBERTO MALLARE

    Facts:

    The private respondent, employee of the petitioner, had an altercation with his co-employee. The next morning both were
    suspended by the operations manager. On the same day, private respondent was informed of his dismissal from the service in
    accordance with their Personnel Manual. Thus private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for unfair labor practice, illegal
    suspension and illegal dismissal.

    The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision and ordered the
    reinstatement and payment of backwages of the private respondent.

    Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order wherein petitioner alleges that the
    public respondent NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision contrary to the evidence on record. It alleged
    that the private respondent had a defiant attitude when confronted by the supervisor regarding the altercation, that he showed no
    interest to avail an investigation and that his failure to ask for investigation is deemed to have waived his right to such.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the act of the private respondent constitutes waiver of right to investigation.

    Held:

    No. The private respondents act is not tantamount to waiver of right to investigation.

    Section 1, Rule XIV of the Implementing Regulations of the Labor Code provides that "No worker shall be dismissed except for
    just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process." Sections 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the same rules require that before an
    employer may dismiss an employee the latter must be given a written notice stating the particular act or omission constituting the
    grounds thereof; that the employee may answer the allegations within a reasonable period; that the employer shall afford him ample
    opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires; and that it is only then that the
    employer may dismiss the employee by notifying him of the decision in writing stating clearly the reasons therefor. Such dismissal is
    without prejudice to the right of the employee to contest its validity in the Regional Branch of the NLRC.

    Although in the Personnel Manual of the petitioner, it states that an erring employee must request for an investigation it does
    not thereby mean that petitioner is thereby relieved of the duty to conduct an investigation before dismissing private respondent. Indeed
    said provision is clearly against the law and hence null and void. The failure of petitioner to give private respondent the benefit of a
    hearing before he was dismissed constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process of law and equal protection of the
    laws.

    However, the Court was constrained to order reinstatement of the private respondent. Though the petitioner failed to conduct
    investigation, the private respondent was afforded an investigation with the Labor Arbiter which he failed to avail because of his failure
    to present position paper and to appear on scheduled hearings. Thus, the decision of Labor Arbiter finding private respondent guilty of
    grave misconduct and insubordination is justifiable and constitute just cause for his termination of employment. NLRC erred in reversing
    the decision solely on ground of failure to observe procedural due process. The private respondent, who appears to be of violent
    temper, caused trouble during office hours and even defied his superiors as they tried to pacify him, should not be rewarded with re-
    employment and back wages.

    Nevertheless, the petitioner was ordered by the Court to indemnify the private respondent for its failure to give the required
    notices and investigation.

    You might also like