Facts:

The case involves Abelardo P. Abel as the petitioner and Philex Mining Corporation, represented by Fernando Agustin, as the respondent. The events leading to this litigation began when Abel was hired in January 1988 and subsequently became the Unit Head in the Mine Engineering and Draw Control Department in early 2002. In September 2002, Abel was implicated in wrongful conduct related to the subsidence area of the mine site located in Pacdal, Tuba, Benguet. The allegations stemmed from an affidavit executed by Danilo R. Lupega, a Subsidence Checker, who was undergoing his own administrative investigation for the "subsidence area anomaly." Lupega's statements accused Abel of failing to report significant loading irregularities by ANSECA Development Corporation during backfilling operations and of attempting to extort money during questionable phone interactions with personnel from ANSECA.

Upon receiving these allegations, Abel refuted them through a formal letter t

...

Facts:

Employment Background and Assignment

• Petitioner Abelardo P. Abel was hired by respondent Philex Mining Corporation in January 1988.
• Initially assigned to the Legal Department as a Contract Claims Assistant.
• Transferred in early 2002 to the Mine Engineering and Draw Control Department, where he was appointed Unit Head.

Allegations and Incidents Leading to Disciplinary Action

• In September 2002, petitioner was implicated in an irregularity at the subsidence area of the mine site at Pacdal, Tuba, Benguet.
• The allegation stemmed from charges made by his co-worker Danilo R. Lupega, a Subsidence Checker, who was himself under investigation for the “subsidence area anomaly.”
• Lupega’s affidavit detailed:
• His strict monitoring of backfilling operations, noting that ANSECA trucks were frequently not fully loaded.
• Incidents where improper loading of back-hoe machine buckets and trucks occurred, as well as telephone conversations allegedly involving petitioner discussing questionable “deals” with an ANSECA accountant.
• Specific telephone conversations wherein petitioner’s voice was heard discussing arrangements related to a financial transaction or “deal” with Didith Caballero of ANSECA.
• Petitioner, in response, denied the allegations by alleging that Lupega was diverting attention from his own responsibilities amid the irregularities.

Internal Investigation and Dismissal Process

• Following the allegations, respondent ordered a fact-finding investigation, holding several meetings regarding the incident.
• Petitioner attended the meetings but claimed:
• He was not asked if he needed legal counsel.
• He was not given adequate opportunity to present his side.
• On December 7, 2002, a memo from respondent’s Administrative Division found petitioner guilty of:
• Fraud resulting in loss of trust and confidence.
• Gross neglect of duty.
• Dismissal from employment was effected on December 8, 2002.

Filing of Complaint and Subsequent Adjudications

• Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) also claiming unpaid annual vacation leave for 2001 and 2002.
• The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the petitioner:
• Declared that the evidence did not substantiate the claims of fraud or gross negligence.
• Ordered petitioner’s reinstatement with full backwages.
• On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter:
• Found petitioner guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty.
• Upholding his dismissal on the basis that his reports and inaction in certain matters justified the loss of trust and confidence.
• Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by the NLRC was denied, leading him to elevate the case via a petition for review on certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

Escalation to the Supreme Court

• The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition, holding that the issues raised were questions of fact and error in findings unsupported by a showing of abuse of discretion.
• Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court arguing:
• Lack of substantial evidence on the charges of fraud and gross neglect of duty.
• Improper handling of the disciplinary process, particularly the failure to provide proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
• Disproportionate penalty given petitioner’s long service and previously untarnished record.
• Respondent countered that all proceedings had been properly observed and the findings of the NLRC were supported by substantial evidence.

Issue:

Validity of the Dismissal

• Whether petitioner’s dismissal for alleged fraud (loss of trust and confidence) and gross and habitual neglect of duty is justified under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
• Whether there is sufficient substantial evidence to support the charges against petitioner.

Procedural Due Process Requirements

• Whether petitioner was accorded due process, specifically the twin notice requirement (first notice to explain and second notice terminating employment).
• Whether the disciplinary proceedings enabled petitioner to adequately prepare and present his defense.

Evidentiary Basis and Corroboration

• Whether the evidence, primarily the uncorroborated testimony of Lupega regarding telephone conversations, reaches the level of substantial evidence required to justify dismissal.
• Whether the irregularities reported and subsequent actions (or inaction) on petitioner’s part amounted to a legitimate breach of trust.

Judicial Review of Findings

• Whether the Supreme Court should reexamine the findings of the NLRC, particularly when they contradict the Labor Arbiter’s earlier favorable ruling for the petitioner.
• Whether the appellate courts erred in dismissing petitioner’s claims as errors of fact rather than errors of law subject to review on certiorari.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)