Case Summary (G.R. No. 157757)
Factual Background
On January 7, 1991, Lavador began her employment with aJa Marketing Corporation in Butuan City, where she received a monthly salary of P3,834. On June 9 and August 23, 1999, the company issued inter-office memoranda accusing Lavador of misappropriation of funds involving two clients. Following these charges, Lavador was reassigned to a receptionist role, and by September 1, 1999, her employment was terminated based on loss of trust and confidence.
Legal Proceedings and Initial Rulings
Lavador filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against both aJa Marketing Corporation and Soyao. The Labor Arbiter ruled on December 31, 1999, finding that Lavador was not illegally dismissed but ordered the respondents to pay her outstanding salary differentials and attorney’s fees. This decision was challenged, and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) subsequently modified the Arbiter’s ruling on April 17, 2001, deleting the awards for salary differentials and attorney's fees.
Court of Appeals Decision
Upon further appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on November 26, 2001, which upheld the termination of Lavador’s employment but ordered the respondents to pay her P10,000 for violating her right to due process. The appellate court stated that Lavador had requested a formal administrative investigation to defend herself against the allegations but was ignored, emphasizing a denial of her right to a fair hearing.
Issues of Due Process
The primary legal issue revolves around whether Lavador’s right to due process was violated. In accordance with Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Labor Code's Implementing Rules, an employer must provide two written notices and an opportunity for the employee to be heard if dismissal is based on just cause. The Labor Arbiter’s ruling and subsequent decisions cited that procedural due process was inadequately observed, particularly as Lavador was not provided the opportunity to properly defend herself.
Supreme Court Findings
The Supreme Court affirmed the earlier decisions with modification by increasing the nominal damages to P20,000 due to the procedural violation. It reiterated that while the termination was based on just cause, the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157757)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The petitioner, Elsie T. Lavador, was employed by aJa Marketing Corporation on January 7, 1991, initially as a daily paid worker and later promoted to assistant cashier with a monthly salary of P3,834.00.
- Lavador faced accusations of misappropriation related to payment issues and was subsequently reassigned to a receptionist position.
- On September 1, 1999, Lavador was terminated from her employment due to alleged loss of trust and confidence.
Legal Proceedings
- Following her termination, Lavador filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against aJa Marketing Corporation and Rogelio U. Soyao, the Executive Vice President and General Manager.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled on December 31, 1999, that Lavador was not illegally dismissed but ordered the respondents to pay her P12,392.73 in salary differential and P1,239.27 in attorney's fees.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified this decision on April 17, 2001, deleting the monetary awards, which led Lavador to file a motion for reconsideration that was denied on May 18, 2001.