FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237226. June 11, 2018.]
PERLITO B. DIGAL, petitioner, vs. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. AND JOSE GERONIMO CONSUNJI, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 11, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237226 — Perlito B. Digal v. United Philippine Lines, Inc. and Jose Geronimo Consunji
Acting on petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time, the Court resolves to GRANT petitioner a period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After a careful review of the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari, and in finding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed, and thus, not entitled to his money claims.
For a dismissal to be valid, the employer must show that it was a for a just or authorized cause and that procedural due process was observed. 1 Procedural due process requires that, before an employee may be dismissed, the employer must observe the twin requirements of notice and hearing. 2 Thus, the employer must furnish the employee with two written notices: (1) the first one apprising the employee of the charges against him; and (2) the second one informing the employee of the decision to dismiss him. 3 In addition, the employer must afford the employee the opportunity to be heard. 4 HDICSa
In this case, records show, that prior to his dismissal, petitioner received the two-written notices and was afforded the opportunity to explain his side during a hearing where he admitted that he agreed to refer applicants who wanted to obtain training certificates without appearance, to Manuel Bernardo (Bernardo) in exchange for a commission fee of P200.00. Considering that petitioner was the personnel responsible for verifying and authenticating the application papers of seafarers, his arrangement with Bernardo was a clear violation of his duty which affected not only the reputation of respondent but also placed the safety of seafarers at risk. The fact that the criminal case filed against him was subsequently dismissed does not justify his reinstatement to his employment. Jurisprudence holds that the dismissal of the criminal case against an employee is not a bar to his dismissal from employment for loss of trust and confidence. 5 Accordingly, petitioner was validly dismissed for serious misconduct, fraud, and willful breach of trust and confidence reposed upon him by respondent.
Moreover, it is a settled ruled that factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and thereafter, by the CA are accorded respect and finality. 6 In this case, the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter that respondent complied with the requirements of just cause and procedural due process were affirmed by the NLRC and the CA. HcDSaT
ACCORDINGLY, the Resolutions dated October 18, 2017 and January 26, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152538 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Tijam, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.De Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission, 564 Phil. 600, 610 (2007).
2.Felicilda v. Uy, G.R. No. 221241, September 14, 2016, 803 SCRA 296, 306.
3.New Puerto Commercial v. Lopez, 639 Phil. 437, 445 (2010).
4.Id.
5.Ramos v. NLRC, 358 Phil. 705, 718 (1998).
6.Becton Dickinson Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 511 Phil. 566, 584-585 (2005).