G.R. No. 198998 - Young Builders Corp. vs. Benson Industries, Inc.

Fernando M. Almonicar worked for San Miguel Corporation for nearly ten years, having started on October 1, 1973, as a Route Helper in the Beer Marketing Division at the Cotabato Sales Office.
During his tenure, he was twice promoted, ultimately reaching the position of Route Salesman.
His record remained unblemished until the incident on February 22, 1982.

On February 22, 1982, around 5:30 p.m., while at the Sales Office inside the company’s warehouse, Almonicar was approached by fellow Route Salesman Abdulkadil Dumamba.
Dumamba requested that Almonicar transfer 100 cases of empty regular beer bottles and 100 cases of empty Beer Grande bottles valued at P3,340.00, intended for a cash refund to the customer.
This transaction was reflective of a common practice among salesmen when facing insufficient sales or collections.
Almonicar complied by handing over the cash and issuing a cash refund invoice in the customer’s name, and he advised the warehouseman to update the Checker’s Stock Report accordingly.

It was later revealed that the beer empties were returned not for a cash refund but to be credited to the customer’s account.
Dumamba issued a charge refund invoice instead but failed to record it in the ledger, a lapse that was later discovered when the customer’s account showed discrepancies.
An inquiry determined that the error was due to Dumamba’s failure to include the proper credit, coupled with his misappropriation of the cash from Almonicar meant for the refund.

Dumamba was immediately grounded following an investigation—one of several defalcation-related investigations during 1982.
In contrast, Almonicar’s involvement appeared limited, and he was even recommended for promotion by his supervisor, Ranulfo Mabacho.
Despite this recommendation, on July 26, 1982, Almonicar received a letter (dated July 21, 1982) from Regional Manager Romeo A. Reyes informing him of his eventual dismissal effective August 15, 1982.
When Almonicar sought an explanation, he was told that the decision had originated in the head office, with further documentation promised to the Ministry of Labor instead.

Almonicar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on October 16, 1982, with the Labor Ministry’s Regional Office No. 12 in Cotabato City.
Following failed conciliation efforts, the case was referred to compulsory arbitration before the Executive Labor Arbiter in Cagayan de Oro City.
At the arbitration hearing on October 26, 1983, both parties submitted their positions; Almonicar filed his position paper on January 23, 1984, while the petitioner (San Miguel Corporation) repeatedly requested extensions but eventually failed to submit a position paper.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on May 30, 1984, ruling that Almonicar’s dismissal was without basis and awarding him separation pay calculated at 1/2 month pay per year of service, in addition to an award to his counsel.

Both parties appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, with petitioner alleging that the Arbiter abused his discretion by introducing new evidence on appeal, and Almonicar contesting the denial of his reinstatement.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially issued a decision on December 10, 1985, which alleged misconduct on Almonicar’s part but still awarded him separation pay based on his service record.
Following a Motion for Reconsideration by Almonicar, the NLRC reversed its earlier decision on March 30, 1987, ordering his reinstatement with full backwages computed from the date of dismissal.
The petitioner (San Miguel Corporation) subsequently filed the instant petition, challenging the NLRC decision on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.

The Court observed that prior to Almonicar’s dismissal, the petitioner had failed to provide him with the mandated written notice and opportunity to be heard, basic requirements under the Labor Code (specifically Art. 277(b)).
The investigation appeared to focus on Dumamba’s alleged acts of defalcation, while Almonicar’s involvement was misconstrued, his statement taken only in relation to the investigation against Dumamba.
The summarily executed dismissal, without an appreciable inquiry into his alleged violation and without affording due process, was found to be an afterthought rather than a measured disciplinary action.
The missing documentation and failure to conduct an administrative hearing further underscored the procedural defects in Almonicar’s dismissal.

Whether the employer (San Miguel Corporation) complied with the procedural requirements of due process, specifically the mandatory provision of notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissing an employee.

Did Almonicar receive proper written notice detailing the grounds for his dismissal?
Was he afforded a meaningful hearing to defend himself against the allegations?

Whether the summarily effected dismissal was justified, given that the same investigation primarily targeted Dumamba, while Almonicar’s responsibilities were misinterpreted and stringently penalized.

Was Almonicar’s conduct under investigation clearly and adequately communicated to him?
Was the dismissal imposed as an unrelated punitive measure in lieu of a thorough investigation into his actions?

Whether the subsequent procedural irregularities, including the petitioner’s failure to file a position paper despite extensions, compromised the fairness of the arbitration process.

Did the absence of petitioner’s timely response affect the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter and, by extension, the NLRC?

The appropriate remedy for wrongful dismissal when due process has been clearly violated.

Should Almonicar be reinstated with backwages, or is separation pay a sufficient remedy?