Case Digest (G.R. No. 172913)
Facts:
Danilo Ogalisco v. Holy Trinity College of General Santos City, Inc. and/or Josemar Albano, G.R. No. 172913, August 09, 2007, the Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Danilo Ogalisco was hired by respondent Holy Trinity College of General Santos City, Inc. in March 1992 as a regular faculty member, teaching Philosophy, Logic, Ethics, and Values Education; he later became Campus Ministry In‑Charge and served as Faculty President (1997–1998). Beginning in 1997, rumors circulated that petitioner was engaged in an illicit affair with Mrs. Crisanta Hitalia, a married co‑teacher; the school’s senior vice‑president brought these rumors to petitioner’s attention.
On May 20, 1998 the school president informed petitioner that a panel would investigate matters relating to the alleged affair. By letter dated June 10, 1998, petitioner was invited to attend an investigation scheduled for June 11, 1998. When petitioner appeared on June 11 he expected an investigation into complaints against the school; instead the panel, upon the president’s presentation, investigated petitioner on charges of immorality (illicit relationship), absenteeism, tardiness, and inefficiency, and petitioner alleges he was not allowed to refute the charges or directly examine witnesses.
Petitioner received the investigation minutes on June 17, 1998 and was given until 7:30 p.m. the next day to answer; he submitted his answer on June 18, 1998 and asked that the June 11 proceedings be annulled for lack of a formal complaint and denial of notice and hearing. On June 19, 1998 the panel recommended termination and Holy Trinity College terminated petitioner’s employment on June 24, 1998.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter. On February 23, 1999 the labor arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal claim for lack of merit but awarded PhP 17,460 as indemnity for failure to afford due process, finding testimony that petitioner and Mrs. Hitalia displayed conduct consistent with an illicit affair. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC (NLRC CA No. M‑004854‑99), which on March 29, 2000 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the labor arbiter; its August 15, 2000 resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 61754). On June 21, 2004 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, finding substantial evidence of an extra‑marital affair and upholding the dismissal; its April 17, 2006 resolution ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In a Rule 45 petition, may the Supreme Court reassess the factual findings of the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals?
- Was petitioner validly dismissed for having an illicit relationship, and was he denied due process entitling ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)