Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24968)
Facts:
Eduardo Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 173151, March 28, 2008, the Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Eduardo Bughaw, Jr. was employed by respondent Treasure Island Industrial Corporation as a production worker from March 1986 until his dismissal in 2001. Respondent had information that some employees were using illegal drugs on company premises. On June 5, 2001, co‑employee Erlito Loberanes was arrested in possession of shabu and, during police investigation, implicated petitioner—stating that petitioner provided money for the drugs and that the drugs were for their consumption.Respondent issued disciplinary notices to petitioner. The record shows a first notice (dated 11 June 2001) charging him and giving him 120 hours to explain and to attend a hearing (petitioner signed receipt of that notice). Petitioner allegedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings (one set for 16 June 2001 and another for 23 July 2001). By a letter dated 21 August 2001 respondent terminated petitioner’s employment retroactive to 11 June 2001 for drug use on company premises and for refusing to attend hearings and submit an explanation. Petitioner, however, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on 20 July 2001 with the Labor Arbiter.
On January 8, 2002 the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment for petitioner, finding respondent failed to substantiate the charge and did not observe due process; the Arbiter awarded unpaid wages, backwages and separation pay totaling P106,590.00. On August 28, 2003 the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision; its denial of respondent’s motion for reconsideration was issued February 27, 2004. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 85498), and on June 14, 2005 the Court of Appeals reversed the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, vacating and setting aside the NLRC decision and nullifying the monetary awards on the ground that petitioner had been afforded opportunities to explain but chose not to appear. The Court o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner illegally dismissed from employment? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)