Title
Salaw vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 90786
Decision Date
Sep 27, 1991
Employee dismissed for alleged misconduct; Supreme Court ruled dismissal illegal due to denial of due process, including right to counsel, ordering reinstatement with backwages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 90786)

Factual Background

Salaw’s duties included inspecting and appraising foreclosed assets, valuing real properties, and verifying titles’ authenticity and encumbrances. On November 27, 1984, CIS officers obtained from him, without counsel, a sworn statement admitting to conspiracy with a co-employee to sell twenty foreclosed sewing machines and electric generators for ₱60,000, divided equally.

Administrative Investigation and Termination

On December 5, 1984, Rollie Tuazon summoned Salaw to appear before the PDIC on February 28, 1985 “without counsel or representative.” After this hearing, the bank dismissed Salaw effective March 27, 1985, citing serious misconduct, willful disobedience, fraud, and breach of trust.

Procedural History

April 17, 1985: Salaw filed for illegal dismissal with the NLRC (Case No. NCR-4-1272-85), submitting an affidavit recanting his CIS statement.
March 29, 1988: Labor Arbiter Villarente ruled dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement with backwages.
July 26, 1989: NLRC reversed and dismissed the complaint.
October 31, 1989: NLRC denied reconsideration.
September 27, 1991: Supreme Court granted review on certiorari.

Issue

Whether the petitioner’s dismissal complied with substantive and procedural requirements under the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code.

Applicable Law on Dismissal

Under the Labor Code (Articles 279, 281, 282-284) and its IRR (Rule XIV, Book V), dismissal must be for a valid cause and preceded by due process: notice of charges and a hearing allowing defense, including assistance of counsel.

Due Process Requirements

The 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 12(1), guarantees any person under investigation the right to competent and independent counsel. Section 12(3) renders inadmissible any confession obtained in violation of these rights.

Violation of Due Process

The PDIC hearing letter expressly barred counsel, depriving Salaw of the opportunity to present evidence, confront witnesses, or defend himself. No justification was offered for excluding representation, rendering the procedure irregular and unfair.

Inadmissibility of Coerced Confession

The bank relied solely on Salaw’s CIS-extracted confession—obtained without counsel—as proof of misconduct. Under Section 12(3) of the 1987 Constitution, that confession is inadmissible, leaving the dismissal unsupported by admissible evidence.

Absence of Substantial Evidence

Respondents failed to present minutes of the PDIC proceedings or any other documentary or testim

...continue reading

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