G.R. No. 80587 - Wenphil Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Private respondent was hired by Wenphil Corporation (the petitioner) on January 18, 1984 as a crew member at its Cubao Branch and later promoted to assistant head of the Backroom department.
On May 20, 1985, at about 2:30 P.M., an altercation arose between private respondent and his co-employee, Job Barrameda, over matters relating to the operation of the Sales Bar.
During the incident, it is alleged that private respondent slapped Barrameda’s cap, stepped on his foot, and brandished an ice scooper against him.

Management trainee Marijo B. Kolimlim attempted to pacify private respondent, but his defiant behavior prompted Kalimlim to notify the assistant manager, Delilah C. Hermosura.
When summoned to see Hermosura, private respondent initially defied her, requiring the intervention of a security guard to bring him for questioning.
Despite his defiant attitude and refusal to explain, both Kalimlim and Hermosura prepared a report recommending the imposition of penalties.
The following morning, the store manager issued a report recommending suspension, and later that same day, the Operations Manager circulated a memorandum suspending Barrameda for one week and dismissing private respondent.

Private respondent was dismissed without a formal investigation, in accordance with the petitioner’s Personnel Manual, which provided that an investigation is convened only if the employee requests it and the offense carries a penalty higher than a suspension of fifteen (15) days.
The dismissal notice was served on May 25, 1985, prompting private respondent to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on December 3, 1986, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit after repeated non-appearance of respondent counsel at hearings.
Subsequently, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on appeal rendered a decision on December 16, 1987, setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and ordering reinstatement of private respondent along with one (1) year’s backwages.

The petitioner contended that because private respondent did not request an investigation—an option clearly provided in the Personnel Manual—he effectively waived his right to be heard prior to his dismissal.
The petitioner maintained that private respondent’s defiant behavior during the incident amounted to insubordination and serious misconduct, thereby justifying his dismissal.

Private respondent challenged his dismissal on the ground that he was denied due process, despite evidence of grave misconduct and insubordination.
The NLRC granted him reinstatement with backwages, basing its decision on the violation of procedural due process as required by law.

The Court noted that security of tenure is enshrined in the Constitution, the Labor Code, and other labor laws, mandating just cause and due process in dismissals.
While the evidence supported the finding of grave misconduct by private respondent, the petitioner’s failure to conduct a formal investigation before dismissal contravened the mandatory due process under the law.
Several concurring and dissenting opinions (Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, and Cortes) provided nuanced views regarding the nature of the remedy—indemnity versus separation pay—and the application of due process in administrative proceedings.

Whether private respondent’s due process rights were violated when he was dismissed without a formal investigation despite the provisions in the Personnel Manual.

The key issue is if the employee’s failure to request an investigation under the Personnel Manual automatically constitutes a waiver of his right to due process.
Whether the mandatory requirements of the Labor Code regarding notice, hearing, and the right to defend oneself were met prior to the dismissal.

Whether the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC regarding grave misconduct and insubordination were sufficient to justify the dismissal notwithstanding procedural lapses.

Whether the incident, as witnessed and reported by co-employees and supervisors, establishes that dismissal was for just cause.
Whether the established findings by the Labor Arbiter are binding on the Court, even if due process was partially observed.

The appropriate remedy for the petitioner’s failure to conduct a formal investigation.

Whether the proper sanction should be reinstatement with backwages, or a lesser measure such as the payment of separation pay or indemnity.
The impact of the employer’s omission on the employee's constitutional and statutory rights.