Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

An employer may dismiss an employee for just cause for violation of a company Code of Discipline, and due process is satisfied where the employee is notified of the charge and afforded a fair opportunity to explain, even without confrontation with the complainant or a formal trial-type hearing.

Philippine Airlines, Inc. employed Raul G. Diamante as Integrated Ticket Representative for its Bacolod City station beginning June 30, 1975. The employment was governed by company rules, particularly Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 of PAL's Code of Discipline prohibiting employees from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any consideration in connection with performance of duties.

On June 30, 1975, Philippine Airlines hired Raul G. Diamante as Integrated Ticket Representative for its Bacolod City station. On April 8, 1988, Edgardo Pineda, Rizalino Cabarloc, Ernesto Subia and Rolando Velasco went to Bacolod Airport to have their tickets booked for flights to Manila on April 9 and 10, 1988, through contact person Romeo Vista, a former officemate of Pineda. At the airport, Leticia Vista, wife of Romeo Vista, introduced Diamante to Pineda as the person who could help book the tickets, and Pineda requested booking for the April 8, 1988 flight, particularly for Subia who had an important meeting in Manila.

Diamante answered that all flights for the week were fully booked but suggested leaving the tickets with him. Pineda gave four tickets to Diamante together with One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), whereupon Diamante assured accommodation. Subia was booked for the April 8, 1988 flight to Manila while Pineda, Velasco and Cabarloc were booked for the April 10, 1988 flight. When Subia failed to take the flight due to illness, Diamante returned Subia's ticket to Vista the following day since it was Diamante's day off. To facilitate re-booking, Vista sought help from her friend Nelia Cawaling, a neighbor of PAL Station Agent Rodolfo Puentebella, and with their help Subia was able to take the April 9, 1988 flight to Manila.

Thereafter, upon arrival in Manila, Pineda executed an affidavit on June 20, 1988 charging Diamante with bribery/corruption. On July 8, 1988, petitioner's Bacolod Branch Manager required Diamante to comment on the affidavit, and on July 13, 1988 Diamante submitted his sworn statement denying the allegations. On July 27, 1988, after evaluation and finding the explanation insufficient, the manager charged Diamante administratively with bribery/extortion and violation of PAL's Code of Discipline.

Petitioner then convened an ad-hoc Committee on Administrative Investigation. On October 3, 1988, at a clarificatory hearing, Diamante appeared with counsel Atty. Allan Zamora and PALEA representative Mario Cornelio, and resetting to October 24, 1988 was agreed to allow confrontation with Pineda. After several postponements, no confrontation occurred because the committee unilaterally set it on November 11, 1988 at Tuguegarao Airport, Cagayan, despite the prior agreement and respondent counsel's request to reset it on November 22, 1988 in Manila. The Committee deliberated and resolved the case on the basis of evidence on record. On December 14, 1988, Diamante received notice of dismissal by office memorandum dated November 29, 1988.

On January 17, 1989, Diamante filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with backwages and damages. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal legal and valid, while the NLRC on appeal found the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with three years backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Due Process: Petitioner argued that the NLRC committed grave error in ruling that private respondent was not accorded his full constitutional right to due process of law, the principal issue being whether respondent was illegally dismissed so as to entitle him to reinstatement with backwages.

• Legality of Dismissal and Management Prerogative: Whether respondent's dismissal for violation of the Company Code of Discipline was for just and valid cause so as to defeat reinstatement with backwages.
• Procedural Due Process: Whether private respondent was deprived of due process by the failure to effect confrontation with the complainant during the administrative investigation.
• Certiorari Review of Labor Findings: Whether the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's finding of valid dismissal, warranting review where NLRC findings contradict those of the Labor Arbiter.

• Legality of Dismissal and Management Prerogative: No illegality. The dismissal was for just and valid cause for violation of the Code of Discipline, within management prerogative to discipline erring workers, leaving the NLRC reinstatement and backwages order without factual and legal basis.
• Procedural Due Process: No deprivation. Ample opportunity to present his side through notice, written explanation, and assisted participation in investigation satisfied due process despite absence of confrontation.
• Certiorari Review of Labor Findings: Yes, review warranted and relief granted. Certiorari is limited to jurisdictional error, but conflicting NLRC and Labor Arbiter findings of fact require examination of the record to determine which conforms to evidentiary facts.

• Legality of Dismissal and Management Prerogative: The right to regulate all aspects of employment, aptly called management prerogative, includes freedom to regulate discipline, dismissal and recall according to discretion and best judgment. In general, discipline pursuant to company rules and regulations is allowed, including imposition of appropriate penalties on erring workers. Applied here, respondent was found to have violated the Company Code of Discipline on bribery/extortion, constituting just and valid cause; consequently, reinstatement with backwages had no factual and legal basis.
• Procedural Due Process: Notice dated July 8, 1988 requiring answer, submission of sworn denial on July 13, 1988, appearance with counsel and union representative at the October 3, 1988 clarificatory hearing, and notification of dismissal after investigation established ample opportunity to be heard. Inability to confront Pineda, after the committee set confrontation on November 11, 1988 at Tuguegarao Airport instead of the requested November 22, 1988 setting in Manila, did not equate to denial of due process because its essence is simply opportunity to be heard, or opportunity to explain one's side in administrative proceedings, without invariably requiring a formal or trial-type hearing where parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain the controversy.
• Certiorari Review of Labor Findings: Certiorari under Rule 65 does not involve assessment and weighing of sufficiency of evidence supporting the labor arbiter and NLRC, being limited to whether public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. However, contradiction between NLRC and Labor Arbiter findings of fact necessitates review of the records to prefer findings more conformable to evidentiary facts, which justified sustaining the Labor Arbiter's validation of the dismissal.

• Scope of Certiorari under Rule 65 in Labor Cases — Review is limited to determination of whether public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, without assessing and weighing sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor arbiter and NLRC based their decisions. Applied to confine inquiry to jurisdictional error rather than reweighing evidence.
• Review Where NLRC and Labor Arbiter Findings Conflict — When NLRC findings of fact contradict those of the labor arbiter, the records must be reviewed to determine which findings should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts. Applied to justify examination of the record and preference for the Labor Arbiter's finding of valid dismissal.
• Management Prerogative to Discipline — An employer has freedom to regulate, according to discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes, regulations, transfer, supervision, lay-off, and discipline, dismissal and recall; in general, management may discipline employees and impose appropriate penalties pursuant to company rules. Applied to uphold dismissal for violation of PAL's Code of Discipline.
• Administrative Due Process as Opportunity to be Heard — The essence of due process is simply opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, opportunity to explain one's side; a formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times essential where parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side. Applied to hold that notice, written explanation, and assisted investigation satisfied due process despite lack of confrontation with the complainant.

• "We reiterate the rule that in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor arbiter and the NLRC based their decisions." — Defines the limited scope of certiorari review, restricting inquiry to jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion.
• "When the findings of fact of the NLRC contradict those of the labor arbiters this Court must of necessity review the records to determine which findings should be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts." — States the exception requiring record review when labor tribunals reach conflicting factual conclusions.
• "In general, management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations." — Articulates the management prerogative basis for sustaining dismissal for violation of company rules.
• "The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side." — Provides the canonical formulation of administrative due process applied to reject the claim based on absence of confrontation.

• Philippine Airlines vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 126805, March 16, 2000, citing Industrial Timber Corporation vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 200 (1997) — Cited as authority for the limited scope of certiorari under Rule 65, not extending to weighing sufficiency of evidence.
• Arboleda vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 38, 44 (1999) — Cited as authority requiring record review where NLRC findings contradict those of the labor arbiter.
• Tierra International Construction Corp. vs. NLRC, 256 SCRA 36, 42 (1996), citing San Miguel Brewery vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25 (1989) — Cited as authority recognizing management prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment including discipline and dismissal.
• National Semiconductor Distribution, Inc. vs. NLRC, 291 SCRA 348, 355 (1998), citing Llora Motors, Inc. vs. Drilon, 179 SCRA 175 (1989) — Cited as authority that due process is satisfied by fair opportunity to explain without invariably requiring formal or trial-type hearing.

• Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court — Governs certiorari review limited to acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; applied to frame the inquiry into the NLRC's reversal of the Labor Arbiter.
• Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2, PAL Code of Discipline — Provides that any employee who directly or indirectly requests or receives any consideration, share, percentage or commission for himself or another in connection with performance of duties violates company discipline; applied as the just cause basis for Diamante's administrative charge and dismissal for bribery/extortion.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.