Case Digest (G.R. No. 240184)
Facts:
This case involves the Musahamat Workers Labor Union-1-ALU as the petitioner and Musahamat Farms, Inc. Farm 1 as the respondent. The respondents subjected to termination were Ernesto Suril Jr., Elvin Suril, Jhonel Suril, Nanding Abana, and Nonito Cabillon, all employed as watchmen by Musahamat Farms, a corporation engaged in the plantation and exportation of Cavendish bananas situated in Davao City. On February 14, 2016, the security officer of respondent, Anthony R. Pablo, informed all watchmen they would be reassigned to farm operations effective the next day. The watchmen opposed the reassignment, asserting their status as children of landowners and thus not farm workers. On February 15, 2016, several banana bunches were discovered chopped down on the farm. Respondent initiated an investigation, during which it issued preventive suspension notices to the watchmen on March 3 and March 23, 2016 for 15 days each. A grievance meeting was held on March 22, 2016, attended only by
Case Digest (G.R. No. 240184)
Facts:
- Parties and Employment
- Ernesto Suril, Jr., Elvin Suril, Jhonel Suril, Nanding Abana, and Nonito Cabillon (collectively, the watchmen) were employed as watchmen by Musahamat Farms, Inc. Farm 1 (respondent), a banana plantation and export corporation based in Davao City.
- Reassignment and Incident
- On February 14, 2016, Anthony R. Pablo, respondent's Security Officer, announced the reassignment of all watchmen to farm operations starting February 15, 2016.
- The watchmen protested, asserting they were children of the landowners who leased farms to respondent and should not be assigned production work.
- On February 15, 2016, respondent discovered that several banana bunches were chopped down at Blocks 6A and 7A of HKJ 2 Farm.
- Investigation and Suspension
- Respondent initiated an investigation into the banana chopping incident.
- On March 3, 2016, respondent issued a preventive suspension notice for 15 days to the watchmen, effective from March 8 to 24, 2016.
- A grievance meeting was scheduled for March 22, 2016, attended only by Ernesto.
- Another preventive suspension notice was issued on March 23, 2016, effective from March 26 to April 13, 2016.
- Termination and Grievance
- After concluding the investigation, respondent terminated the watchmen on April 12, 2016, effective April 14, 2016.
- A second grievance meeting was held on April 15, 2016, where parties agreed to elevate the dispute to a third party.
- Contentions and Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision
- The watchmen claimed lack of due process and that the dismissal was based on hearsay evidence.
- Respondent maintained the dismissal was legal, grounded on serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
- The Voluntary Arbitrator found the dismissal illegal, reasoning:
- The employer failed to prove allegations by substantial evidence; affidavits relied on were from witnesses with unestablished credibility and no personal acquaintance with the watchmen.
- The alleged February 19, 2016 meeting where a witness purportedly identified the watchmen was unsubstantiated.
- The preventive suspension notices did not specify charges, depriving the watchmen of the chance to defend themselves.
- The Voluntary Arbitrator ordered reinstatement or, if not feasible, payment of back wages, separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- The CA reversed the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision.
- It found the February 19, 2016 meeting occurred and that testimonies could serve as circumstantial evidence.
- The CA held respondent substantially complied with procedural due process.
- It declared the dismissal valid and legal.
- Petition for Review
- The watchmen filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the dismissal of the watchmen was for a just and valid cause.
- Whether procedural due process was observed in the dismissal of the watchmen.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)