Title
De Vera vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 93070
Decision Date
Aug 9, 1991
A 25-year BPI employee was dismissed for alleged fraud after endorsing checks diverted to unauthorized accounts. The Supreme Court ruled his dismissal illegal due to denial of due process, ordering reinstatement and backwages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 93070)

Background Facts

The case roots back to May 28, 1987, when ASB Realty Corporation presented a significant check to BPI, leading to a series of transactions that resulted in allegations of fraud. The transactions involved a forged Time Certificate of Deposit (TCD), leading to de Vera's involvement being questioned following significant financial discrepancies. After a notice of preventive suspension was issued on June 2, 1987, de Vera faced inquiries about the incident, yet he contended that he was not formally informed of being charged with any wrongdoing.

Procedural History and NLRC Decision

On August 6, 1987, de Vera filed a case with the NLRC after receiving a Notice of Termination dated July 10, 1987, citing grounds of fraud. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in de Vera's favor, awarding him separation pay based on bank policy. However, upon appeal from BPI, the NLRC reversed this decision, asserting that de Vera's dismissal complied with due process requirements. The NLRC maintained that the notice of preventive suspension and the interrogations constituted adequate notice and opportunities for de Vera to present his defense.

Petitioner’s Claims

De Vera argued that the NLRC decision reflected a grave abuse of discretion, asserting that he was unceremoniously denied his right to due process. He highlighted the absence of a formal charge spelling out the causes for termination, which curtailed his ability to adequately defend himself against accusations. Moreover, he contested that the subsequent investigations were insufficient as they did not concern a direct inquiry into his culpability, thereby failing to fulfill the due process requirements outlined in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

Respondents’ Position

In defense, BPI contended that the notice of preventive suspension implied de Vera's connection to the anomalies, asserting that the notice and interviews provided necessary awareness of the ongoing investigations. Moreover, BPI argued that de Vera’s educational background should have equipped him with the understanding of the situation he was in. They contended that he was given ample chances to defend himself during subsequent interrogations.

Ruling on Due Process

The Court held that de Vera was denied due process, emphasizing the necessity for employers to follow prescribed procedures prior to any dismissal. It underscored that due process mandates two notices: a written charge containing the s

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.