Case Digest (G.R. No. 80587)
Facts:
Wenphil Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission and Roberto Mallare, G.R. No. 80587, February 08, 1989, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.Roberto Mallare (private respondent/employee) was hired by Wenphil Corporation (petitioner/employer) on January 18, 1984 as a crew member at its Cubao branch and later became assistant head of the Backroom department. On May 20, 1985 Mallare had a physical and verbal altercation with co-employee Job Barrameda; coworkers and supervisors intervened, and reports were prepared the following day recommending penalties. The store manager initially suspended both Mallare and Barrameda; later on May 24 or 25 (the record places notice of dismissal on May 25, 1985) the Operations Manager issued a memorandum dismissing Mallare allegedly pursuant to the company's Personnel Manual.
Mallare filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter. Hearings were repeatedly delayed by the non-appearance of Mallare’s counsel, and after submission on position papers the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated December 3, 1986 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, finding Mallare guilty of grave misconduct and insubordination based on witness statements. Mallare appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which, in a decision rendered (the opinion refers to dates in October and December 1987), set aside the labor arbiter’s decision and ordered reinstatement with full seniority and one year backwages without qualification.
Wenphil petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari to annul the NLRC decision and filed a prayer for preliminary injunction/restraining order; the Court issued a restraining order on December 2, 1987 enjoining enforcement. Petitioner contended that Mallare had waived any right to an employer-convened investigation because the Personnel Manual required the erring employee to request an investigation when the offense was punishable by more than f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was private respondent denied due process before his dismissal, and did he waive the right to an employer investigation under the petitioner’s Personnel Manual?
- If there was a procedural defect, is private respondent nevertheless entitled to reinstatement and backwages when the Labor Arbiter later found j...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)