Gonzales v. NLRC - 125735 (1999)

TOGUAY, Paul Jeffrey U.
2019-80129
Block 4
Topic: Powers of Administrative Bodies;
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) . . . [f]urther, ordering respondent to pay 10% of
the total monetary award as attorney's fees to counsel for complainant . . . [d]ismissing all
other claims for lack of merit," is REINSTATED, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED herein as the
decision in the instant case.
Citation G.R. No. 125735
Date August 26, 1999
Petitioner LORLENE A. GONZALES
Respondent NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIFTH DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE

ORO CITY, and ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY
PRINCIPLES/
DOCTRINES 1. 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."“Substantial evidence is more than mere scintilla. It means
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion."
2. 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:
a. to defend herself either personally and/or with assistance of a
representative;
b. to know the nature of her offense; and,
c. 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.
3.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner has been a schoolteacher in the Elementary Department of private
respondent assigned to teach Reading, Mathematics, Language and Pilipino in the Grade
VI class. The school headmaster informed the petitioner about the complaints of two
parents for alleged use of corporal punishment on her students. However, the petitioner
was not informed of the complainants’ identities. 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. The petitioner
demanded the school headmaster that she must be formally informed of the complaint
and be duly investigated. The school headmaster formed an investigative committee and
informed the petitioner of its members. However, the 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: . . . 3) Counsel for Ms. Lorlene Gonzales shall not
directly participate in the investigation but will merely advise Ms. Gonzales . . . (par. 3).
However, the committee did not strike down the questioned paragraph as 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."
Over the objection of the petitioner, the Committee commenced with its
investigation without the petitioner’s participation. After deliberations without the
presence of the petitioner, the school served a Notice of Termination based on the
findings and recommendation of the Committee. Thereafter, the 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.
The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. The
Labor Arbiter found her dismissal illegal for lack of factual basis and ordered ATENEO to
award petitioner separation pay, back wages and 13th month pay. After considering the
evidence, arguments and counter-arguments of the parties, the Labro Arbiterfound that
the respondent failed to establish substantial evidence as to the guilt of complainant of
the offense charged. The petitioner 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. . .
The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and declared the petitioner’s
dismissal valid and legal but added that since ATENEO offered the petitioner her
retirement benefits. Thus, it was proper that she be extended said benefits.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the petitioner was accorded due process. - No.
2. Whether or not the charges against the petitioner was sufficiently established. - No
RULING:
1. No. The petitioner was not accorded 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:
1. to defend herself either personally and/or with assistance of a
representative;
2. to know the nature of her offense; and,
3. 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.
In the case at bar, the petitioner was denied the right to demand
compliance with the basic requirement of due process, that is, the
assistance of counsel, due to adamant refusal of the Committee to accede
to this demand resulted in her failure to confront and cross-examine her
accusers.
2. No. the charges against the petitioner were sufficiently established.
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."“Substantial evidence is more than mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion."
In the case at bar, 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. The evidence against the
petitioner 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 the school. 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.
CONCLUSION:
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.
Xxxx nothing follows xxxx

Gonzales v. NLRC - 125735 (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales v. NLRC - 125735 (1999)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales v. NLRC - 125735 (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOGUAY, Paul Jeffrey U.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of public respondent National Labor Relations

Citation G.R. No. 125735

Date August 26, 1999

Petitioner LORLENE A. GONZALES

Respondent NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIFTH DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE

Likewise, due process requires that the decision must be based on

Likewise, due process requires that the decision must be based on

Xxxx nothing follows xxxx

You might also like